1921-02-22

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Copy Orders in Council Nos. 1722 and 1860 approving two tariffs of fees of elections' officers under section 76 of the Dominion Elections Act.-Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Report on the Agricultural Instruction Act 1919-1920.-Hon. Mr. Calder for Hon. Mr. Tolmie. ,
Regulations under the Destructive In sect and Pest Act.-Hon. Mr. Calder for Hon. Mr. Tolmie.
Order in Council appointing the representatives of Canada to attend the first meeting of the Assembly of the League ol Nations.-Right Hon. Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency, the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Monday February 21.
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) who entertained us last evening with an address that, no doubt, from many points of view was very interesting-although I think it must be confessed that it was in many respects hardly relevant to the motion and the amendment before the House-covered, as I took occasion to say, when moving the adjournment of the debate last night, a very considerable extent of ground. It is not my purpose or intention to take up in detail all the different matters, more or less relevant, which he introduced into that discourse. I shall content myself with dealing with what seemed, in the mind of the hon. gentleman at all events, to be the outstanding points which he sought to make, limiting myself, if I may use the expression, to "touching the high spots". That will necessarily reduce the length of my observations, because so far as I was able to appreciate his discourse the high spots, were rather conspicuous by their absence.

The hon. gentleman, I suppose in view of what had preceded in this debate, by way of finding something that might perhaps constitute a reason why this motion should be made, and a reason that might at least call for some discussion as to why we should have an election, suggested that we should have an election because there is going to be an Imperial Conference, as he described it, in the month of June. And when he mentioned "Imperial Conference", there immediately crept into his discourse a subject that he seems as incapable of keeping out of his speeches as was the famous Mr. Dick, of Dickens' creation, incapable of keeping out of his literary productions the head of King Charles. [DOT]
He gave us a dissertation upon his conception of Canada's national position, and in that he gave us another evidence of his settled determination to thwart every endeavour that may be made to assure to Canada the national status to which she has so long aspired, and to create the impression that her achievement in the direction of that full national status amounted practically to nothing. He clings-with all the determination which the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) attributes to us in what he calls our clinging to office-to the colonial garments with which he sees Canada still robed.


Mr. BELAND:: I did that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) says that he was the gentleman who did that. I missed the pleasure of hearing his address-


Henri Sévérin Béland: You missed a lot.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -and I quite realize the loss was entirely mine. The hon. gentleman in his speech did refer to the hon. member for Rouville as having taken the position which he took himself.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Do not call me the hon. member for Rouville, please.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I appreciate his modesty which seeks so promptly to repudiate the honours unconsciously attached to him. However that may be from the point of view of the hon. gentleman, perhaps* I should apologize for the error; it is always proper to apologize in such a case.
Mr.'LEMIEUX: And sin no more.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman, in his frantic endeavour to establish that Canada is, after all, nothing but a mere colony, carries us back to 1911. Incidentally, I may suggest that in seeking to establish that position he is seeking to establish that a large part of the life-work of his late distinguished leader, for whom he professes so great admiration, went absolutely for naught. But the hon. gentleman is still living in 1911. May I say to him that since 1911 a great deal of water has passed under the bridges? And may I add that a great deal of blood has been spilled on the battlefields of a ravaged and devastated Europe? And may I further add-but it is not needful to remind the hon. gentleman of that-that much of that blood was the blood of Canada's youthful sons Who, if nothing else had proved it, proved to the world that Canada had bought, at a price that is beyond all prices, the right to recognition of that nationhood to which she had grown? The hon. gentleman, going back to 1911, cites a declaration of the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Mr. Asquith, that it was impossible that the dominion nations of this Empire should ever have any share in the control of the Empire's foreign affairs. Having cited this, the hon. gentleman says:	The case is
ended; that is conclusive; there is nothing more to be said. I would ask the hon. gentleman: Since when have the people of Canada decided that their destinies are to be settled by the ipse dixit of any British Prime Minister, no matter how distinguished he may be? Time out of mind and times without number there has been hurled across the floor from the other side- we have heard it from the hon. gentleman himself-the imputation that upon this side of the House there was some desire to be governed from Downing Street. What more absolute evidence of the Readiness to be governed from Downing Street can be found than the abject submission of the hon. gentleman and his friends to a declaration, which he attributes to one Prime Minister, as settling forever the national status of Canada? In that day what that Prime Minister said was unsound and untrue. He slammed the door in the face of Sir Joseph Ward, who had made the suggestion-which, I am sure, found a response in the hearts of the people of all these dominions-that the time had come when as sister nations we were entitled to have our say as to what the Empire of which we are an essential part should do in connection with her foreign affairs as well as in connection with

other affairs of general interest. We have to admit that the then representative of this Dominion stood silently by, and so far as silence could give acquiescence he gave his acquiescence. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) is not satisfied with that silent acquiescence; he comes to ,us now, ten years afterwards, to proclaim that the question was then and there settled once for all. May I remind him that there were people in Canada at that time who were not prepared to give that silent acquiescence? May I remind him that within one year after that incident other representatives of Canada were in England speaking the real voice of Canada? May I remind him that among those gentleman was the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden)? May I recall to his mind also the fact that that right hon. gentleman went from gathering to gathering in England proclaiming in terms that permitted of no misunderstanding that Canada did not accept the dictum that she . never could and never would have a voice in the control and direction of those important affairs touching so closely her vital interests? Has he forgotten-or, perchance, did he never know-that that same Mr. Asquith (who in the presence of the acquiescing representatives of Canada had slammed the door in Sir Joseph Ward's face) after these pronouncements of the right hon. member for King's and after the response that he saw they evoked in the British hearers of that right hon. gentleman, reopened that door? What Mr. Asquith said in 1911 he abandoned in 1912, the hon. member clings to it still. Let me read to him what the hon. Mr. Asquith said in 1912 after he had heard the real voice of Canada as spoken by the right hon. member for King's. It may be found in the British Hansard for the 22nd of July, 1912. In what he acknowledged there Mr. Asquiths did not stand alone; there was a veritable chorus of leaders and leading statesmen on both sides of the British House declaring their recognition of the soundness of the doctrine that the right hon. gentleman was laying down, and Mr. Asquith's statement came as the crowning of what they had all said. And what did Mr. Asquith say? I quote from the British Hansard:
I will add, although I will not make any detailed statement upon that point at this moment-that side by side with this growing participation in the active burdens of the Empire, on the part of our Dominions there rests with us undoubtedly the duty of making such response as we can to their obviously reasonable appeal that they should be entitled to 
be heard in the determination of the policy and in the direction of Imperial affairs. I do not say it would be wrong to state-of course Mr. Borden and his colleagues would be the first to disclaim any desire for any such declaration, but I do not say in what shape or by what machinery that great purpose is to be obtained. Arrangements like that cannct be made in a day. They must be the result of mature deliberation and thought; they will probably have to develop from time to time-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will show the hon.
gentleman how they have developed from time to time. There was a period of time filled with great events between 1912 and 1921. Mr. Asquith continues:
- but without committing ourselves in any degree to particular forms in the matter, we share with our great Dominions the feeling which has become more and more conscious and articulate as years have gone on throughout the Empire, that we have a common heritage and interests, and that in the enjoyment of that heritage, and in the discharge of the duties which those interests involve, we ought more and more to be conscious partners with one another.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear. Fine
words.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the then Prime
Minister of Great Britain foresaw, time has done its developing work. The hon. gentleman-I should say the hon. gentlemen, for the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) insists upon being included-seem to be singularly blind to what is going on around them. They have not seen this developing work of time in which their late leader had so implicit a faith. They do not seem to have the aspirations that he had. They want to see their Canada always, shall I say, in her swaddling clothes?- Perhaps that would be carrying things too far; but however she may grow, whatever years she may attain, whatever achievements may be to her credit, however perfectly she may have fitted herself for her role amongst her sister nations, they want to see her with her fingers grasping close her mother's apron strings and clamouring to be kept in the nursery. High ambition, lofty ideal, for Canadians to hold! Surely the hon. gentlemen, who after all, I know have good Canadian hearts, will some day wake up, will some day escape from their Egyptian darkness which seems to surround them and precludes their seeing their country's growth. I spoke of their being in Egyptian darkness. Is this blindness of theirs perhaps not more attributable to the very dazzling nature of the light that shines upon this country and shows her forth to the world's nations as a nation

standing on a footing of equality amongst the nations of the British Commonwealth? Is is not rather that, on account of their having accustomed themselves to live in the darkness of that colonial condition, the light appears to be too much for their unaccustomed eyes, and just because the evidence is too conclusive, because the light shines too brilliantly, they seem incapable of seeing?
I have said that through those years there have been developments. Certainly a great change operated from the day of the British Prime Minister's declaration cited by the hon. gentlemen in which he pooh-poohed the possibility of the Dominions standing recognized as sister nations, to the day when another Prime Minister of Great Britain, introducing the representatives of those sister nations into the society of nations, first at the Paris conference and in the League that was subsequently constituted, said, mincing no words:	" Why, Sir, these are practically
independent nations." There is a long gap between those two declarations, and evidently the moving hand of time of which Mr. Asquith spoke in 1912 had not stopped but had continued to move during that period. What is the evidence that has satisfied the world of Canada's national status and that has left unconvinced no one but a few-I sincerely believe they are becoming fewer-people in Canada who persist in turning their eyes away from, the light? It is not my habit, nor my practice, to try to search out men's motives; I am satisfied to judge their actions, and as I have said, I believe that these hon. gentlemen have good Canadian hearts.. I can only wish them a better intellectual eyesight.
What is the position to-day? Every statesman of the United Kingdom recognizes that this Empire is made up of different, distinct, self-governing nations, and that it takes all of them to make the great commonwealth which is called the Empire; that there belongs to no one of those nations the right of domination over the other; that there belongs not even to a majority of those nations the right to dominate over any one or more of them. We have found a better method for binding together those nations of the great British Commonwealth, because, bear in mind that I have made no suggestion that Canada or any one of the other Dominions is a nation outside of the British Empire. I have heard the hon. gentleman many and many a time in eloquent periods protest his devotion to the maintenance of that great commonwealth,
and so far as those expressions go, I have no desire to differ with him. There is in what I am saying no suggestion of any separation from the great Empire which really would be dislocated if one of these members should abandon it, and I am not talking of that; but I am trying to bring to the mind of the hon. gentleman just what that Empire is, and it is that partnership to which the Hon. Mr. Asquith aspired in the words that I have quoted. Surely we stand to-day, by common acknowledgment of the statesmen not only of the other Dominions, but of the United Kingdom itself, nations each equal in status with every other.
I do not think I need labour that further. Why did His Majesty, when he was called upon to sign the peace treaty and wanted to bind his entire Empire, sign that Treaty distinctly on behalf of Canada, distinctly on behalf of Australia, distinctly on behalf of South Africa, distinctly on behalf of New Zealand? Why did he consider that he should not impose that signature until he had the advice of his ministers of those respective countries? Simply because what was needed was the Empire's signature, and you would not have the Empire's signature when you had the signature of but one of the nations if you had not the signatures of all the nations that went to make up that Empire. Can there be any more outstanding act that His Majesty is ever called upon to do on behalf of this Empire than the signing of a treaty of that import? Why, too, when the nations proceeded to form their Assembly of Nations, did they welcome Canada as one amongst them? Why, when they convened their Assembly of the League of Nations, did they summon Canada to be present? Why did they receive her delegates on a footing of equality with the delegates of the greatest States of this world? Why did they, whatever may have been the value of what those delegates had to say, listen with respect to the voice of Canada? The answer is obvious. Nothing of that kind could have happened if they at all events had not differed from my hon. friend as to Canada's status. And now the hon. gentleman finds a reason why we are not a nation. It is because we are not performing all the actions of nations. He says-just listen, because it is so conclusive and so convincing! Why, he says, you have not got any consular offices. A new addition to the essentials of national existence! Because Canada has not felt the need of consular offices, because, having this big

sister nation, which, by reason of its manifold interests, requires such offices all over the world and is willing to give Canada the service of those offices whenever she may have an interest calling for representation in those countries-because under those circumstances Canada does not seek to provide herself with consular offices, then, forsooth, Canada has gone back to her colonial status! Having given us this conclusive reason, what is the next thing the hon. gentleman proceeds to do? He directs an attack upon this Government for having sought to provide for diplomatic representation at Washington. Very consistent! We are not a nation because we have not got consular offices; the one thing he is able to point out as lacking to our national status is that we should have consular offices; but so determined is he that we should not complete the national status that he makes an onslaught upon us for having had the ambition to provide for a diplomatic representative at Washington, the country where we have the greatest occasion for representation, the country with whom our relationships are such that we may be said, without exaggeration, to be in constant communication with regard to matters of a kind that, where we have no diplomatic representative, have to be communicated through the office in Great Britain and communicated back through that office, and through the British Ambassador to us. The hon. gentleman waxes indignant because we sought to remedy that state of affairs. Is it that he is afraid that he may be deprived of the last shred of argument that he could invoke to deny the status of his own country, to humiliate her and keep her back among the growing children who have not yet reached the status of manhood or womanhood and are not yet qualified to take their place among their adult companions in the great body of the world's nations?
Then, my hon. friend and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) raised the ghost that we thought had long since been laid, the ghost with which they seek to terrorize the people of Canada, the ghost of some central organization that must necessarily be brought into existence and have conferred upon it a power to dominate Canada if Canada ventures to assert her national status. Outside of the imagination of these hon. gentlemen, where can we find evidence of any such danger as that? Who is preaching to-day the creation of a central organization to dominate this Dominion?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Lord
Burnham and Lord Cave.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If Lord Burnham and
Lord Cave are preaching such a doctrine, let me again point out that we on this side of the House are not like my hon. friend. We do not say:	Lord Burnham and Lord
Cave have said so; therefore, Canada, bow down.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We do not say that
either.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have our say. Let me just read to the hon. gentleman what somebody who has more to say about the matter than Lord Burnham or Lord Cave, so far as Canada is concerned, had to say the other day in our good city of Montreal. Speaking on this question of Imperial relations, he said:
Let us keep on the way we are going and let brotherly love continue. I have never been a believer In abrupt constitutional change. The elevation of our status as a British nation has through all the years been a matter of growth rather than of change, and so it will always be.
There are those who are continually seeing trouble In our Imperial relations, and who pretend to be In terror lest we lose our autonomy. There is no more danger of the loss of our autonomy than there is of the loss of our atmosphere. Don't let us be frightened by ghosts, especially homemade ghosts, born and re-born, exhibited and re-exhibited wholly for political purposes. One political leader of the present time-he does not live in Montreal- puts a declamation into every speech against what he calls Imperial Centralization. I don't konw anyone with the slightest Influence either here or anywhere else who wants Imperial Centralization.
He was apparently not as intimate with the noble lords as my two distinguished friends. He went on:
It is a long, long time since, any such system was even seriously talked of, and no one has done more to make anything like centralized control forever impossible and to point a more excellent way to the British' family of nations than has the man who led this country through the war, whose principle of full autonomy I adhered to then and sanction now. Perhaps the necessity of an issue is father to the thought, but there are some whose fear of centralization is the greater the farther we get from it.
Those are the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country, speaking the unanimous opinion of the men who sit behind him. Will the hon. gentlemen now stop being afraid of ghosts?
They tell us they do not want Imperial centralization. Here is the declaration from the authorized voice which speaks for this side of the House. Why are gentlemen

so afraid? But perhaps before proceeding further I might remark that when one insists on remaining in the nursery one is likely to lack confidence in what oneself may do by way of protection from dangers real or apprehended. But those of us who have been proud to step out into the open field of Canada's nationhood trust to ourselves for our own protection from any threatened interference with our autonomy, if there be any such threat. And let me add that I am not aware of the statements of Lord Cave or Lord Burnham, but I have heard statesmen occupying,-with all respect to those particular gentlemen-much more prominent and much more influential positions in the Government of the British Empire, and I have heard them, not once but time and time again-and you may find their declarations in the newspapers - repudiating the idea of any such ambition. Let hon. gentlemen not be afraid; let them gather their courage together.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We do not lack that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then what is it that you lack?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The facts.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Nothing else.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The facts? We have not a Consular office at Washington; we did try to have a minister there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You won't have it; you cannot get it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we cannot get it. (Let me say in parenthesis that that last statement I know to be unfounded; but let us suppose it to be true). The hon. gentleman will have no nationhood because we have not that thing which he denounces as something disastrous for Canada to have. The logic, of course, is absolutely conclusive.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Don't twist.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, if the hon. gentleman is not afraid, then we may take it that the ghost has disappeared and the central organization has no terrors for him; and there is nothing left now but the fact that we might have a representative at Washington.' I am not sure whether he is afraid of our having one, or of the possibility that we might not; there is some doubt on that score.
Now, to pass from this matter, which I must apologize for having given so much
time to; my excuse is that I have regard for the hon. gentleman and would be glad to see him come out from the ways of darkness and walk with us in the paths of light;
I feel he could do a valuable service to this young nation if he only would have the faith to believe in it. The measure of Canada's nationhood is just the measure of the determination of her children to see that she has that nationhood; and if we fail in that respect it will be because the adversaries of Canada's nationhood, who are to be found only in Canada, will have succeeded, will have triumphed, will have overturned the facts by their misinterpretation of them. Canada's nationhood has no enemies outside of Canada; it is not questioned abroad; we have to come to Canada to find the thing put in question. Why, if I wanted to refer to past things, I might just mention that when in the United States Congress men were looking round for arguments against Canada's right to stand among the nations, and to have her vote cast in the assembly of those nations, having sought the world over, one of them at all events was able to find but one argument, and it was in the speech of an non. member of this House. If hon. gentlemen are proud of that role I do not envy them their conception of what is a proper subject of pride.
And now, to come to this proposition upon which the hon. gentleman hung his observations about Canada's nationhood and of which he profited as an opportunity to add his further little effort to defeat Canada's nationhood, that is, the proposition that because there is to be what he terms an Imperial Conference in June of this year therefore we ought to have a general election. I appreciate the value of the argument in so far as it is evidence that the hon. gentleman recognizes that what had been, until he made his speech, put forward as an argument, was in fact so utterly insufficient that he must go out looking for an additional reason. But it will not take a great deal of time to show that this second argument that has been brought up as a reinforcement of the failing argument advanced in support of this motion is weaker even than the beaten reason to whose reinforcement it has been called. The hon. gentleman says that because there is going to be what he describes as an Imperial Conference we must have a general election. There have been Imperial Conferences in the past; they were attended not only by the leader of our most recent Government, the right hon. member for King's, (Sir Robert Bor-



den), but during a series of years in different sessions they were attended by the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the former leader of my hon. friends opposite, and a great Canadian whose memory we all of us respect.. Did he go to the country every time he was going to attend an Imperial Conference? I do not think hon. gentlemen would be able to point to one instance in which he did. The last occasion I remember was during the sesion of 1911 when the House adjourned in order that the then Prime Minister might attend an Imperial Conference. Was any voice raised then to suggest that there was need of going to the country before the right hon. gentleman proceeded to the Imperial Conference? It is true-and I shall have something to say on this later on-that at that very time members of this House were arguing that there was reason to go to the country. But they stopped that very argument and suspended discussion of the matter in order to allow the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier to go and attend the Imperial Conference. And that was not the only Imperial Conference which the right hon. gentleman attended. If I remember rightly, he attended three; at all events he attended more than one, and he never went to the country before going to any Conference. The reason was obvious. In that, as in many other things, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right and the Parliament of that day was absolutely right. Why should his going to an Imperial Conference involve his having a general election first? In the first place, let me say to the hon. gentleman that what is going to take place in June is not an Imperial Conference, although I am quite willing, for the purpose of this argument, that he should regard it as such. As a matter of fact, it will be a meeting of Prime Ministers to talk over and discuss matters. It is not, nor would an Imperial Conference be, a body whose decisions would bind any country represented at it.
Everybody who knows what the Imperial Conference is-and this, as I have said, is not even an Imperial Conference-knows that no country was ever bound by anything that transpired at it; that if the parties attending that conference did, as between themselves, come to a mutual agreement that a certain course would be desirable, all that could follow from it could be that the representative of each country would go back home and report-submit his report first to the government of his country, and that government, if it approved, would submit to

the national Parliament the suggested plans or projects that may have been considered and may have been agreed to at such conference. Why, we have an outstanding instance of that in the conference of 1912 where the Prime Minister of that day came back from the conference and laid before this House a project, and that project failed entirely of effect because the other Chamber of this Parliament declined to approve of it. Why then the need of going to the country before the Prime Minister can talk over with these other Prime Ministers things that may be proposed, not things that shall be done? 1 think the hon. gentleman himself will appreciate that if out of that conference there should grow anything that would call for a decision by the people of this country, the only proper time to go to the people upon questions of that sort would be when the Prime Minister had taken the responsibility of asking the Canadian Parliament to take some action with regard to it. I am not now going to discuss whether it would or would not, under those circumstances be necessary or desirable to go to the country. That would depend almost entirely-very largely at all events -upon what the nature of the proposition would be; , but to suggest that, contrary to all precedent, this House should now declare that the Prime Minister cannot go to England to talk over and discuss with the other prime ministers of the different nations of this Empire what might be in their mutual interest and what would be a desirable course for each of them to adopt, without first dissolving this House and going to, the country, is, I think, carrying the search for reasons to bolster up an unsustainable proposition to the extreme limit to which such a search can be carried. It seems to me it would not be unfair to speak of my hon. friend's position, in so far as he grasps at that contention, as the desperate grasping at a straw by the drowning man who finds that the plank to which he had entrusted himself has failed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will, I am sure, allow 'me to ask a question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sure that my hon. friend does not want to give a different interpretation from what I said about the next conference. I said that if the Prime Minister of Canada was going to a conference, where he is to discuss-according

to despatches which have been
4 p.m. published of late-the share that Canada must take in the naval defence of the Empire, surely that was such an important question that he should get a mandate from the people. That is what I suggested.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. and learned friend when he does not rely upon his imagination for establishing the facts upon which he bases his conclusions falls back upon that substantial basis, "what the newspapers say about current events." As I have already stated, whatever the newspapers may say, this meeting of Prime Ministers is not going to decide anything which will hind any country. Whether they will talk about Imperial defence I am not in a position to say; but whatever may be talked about there, let the hon. gentleman possess his soul in calm-nothing will be done there that will bind Canada. From the very nature of things nothing can be done there that will bind Canada; the whole thing is purely consultative.
During the hon. gentleman's references to our providing for a minister at Washington-I do not know whether he fears we shall or shall not take that course-he went on to make some allusion to the question of water being taken from the Great Lakes for the Chicago ship canal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From Lake Michigan.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well, from Lake Michigan for the Chicago Ship Canal. My hon. friend seemed to think that if we had a minister at Washington the water would be taken away, but that if it were not a minister but a commissioner, then the water would not be taken away. Let us be serious.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh yes, let us be serious.


Charles Joseph Doherty: a part of that humanity; let him not suggest we should abstain from doing our reasonable part to keep Canada in a position in which she may not suffer the reproach that she alone among the nations did not interest herself in that which makes for the common good of the world; let him not be afraid that because we are prepared to do our duty in that regard we are therefore going to expose the interests of this our own nation of which we are so proud.
Now, let me come to what the hon. gentleman attempted to say in support of the general proposition that this amendment was called for because the continued existence of this Parliament and of this Government was a violation of every constitutional principle. It is a very long time since I have had the pleasure-we will call it pleasure-of listening to so much variegated and strong language and so many rash assertions, made and repeated as though the makers and repeaters of them had an absolute conviction of the efficacy of the rule lately laid down by a distinguished American politician-that the one way to get a statement accepted is to make no effort to prove it, but to just throw it out and keep repeating it and getting it repeated, until finally you say: well, of course, nobody argues anything against that; it is obvious.
Our distinguished friends on the other side, starting with their leader, have told us that the war being over the remaining in office of this Government is a breach of the British constitution, and that if we do not hurry up and go to the people to-morrow that breach would hardly be reparable. They advanced reasons in support of this, citing the fact that one gentleman in Great Britain went to the country because the by-elections had been going against him; and that another gentleman who argued against the proposition at that time, had argued in favour of it when he happened to be in Opposition at another time. And, faithful to the colonial aspirations which distinguish my hon. friends on the other side, they threw at us those isolated facts as conclusive evidence that that was the spirit of the British constitution; some of them even waxed eloquent about a government " of the people, by the people, and for the people "; and, of course, as we all know, they were quoting Abraham Lincoln; and then they concluded that this House ought to dissolve to-morrow.
I wonder if the {ion. gentlemen have forgotten that the very essence of the British

constitution is parliamentary government. In the. sense which the hon. gentlemen are clamouring for, the British constitution does not provide for government by the people; it provides for government by the people's representatives, and it determines, according to the laws of the different countries, for what period of time the mandate shall be conferred upon the members of Parliament. Because, mind you, we have heard a great deal of talk about the mandate of this Government and the mandate of that Government coming directly from the people. That is an expression used at different times, but people who understand know that it is purely figurative. The mandate that the elector gives is a mandate to the member of Parliament. And my hon. [DOT] friend the leader of the Opposition seemed to think it necessary to carry us back to very ancient times for the purpose of telling us that there existed a legal remedy known as quo warranto-a remedy that exists to-day just as it has always existed -and he went on to say that by that great writ a man holding office was called upon to say by what warrant he held his office. My hon. friend then suggested that if a writ of quo warranto went to this Government it would be powerless to make a conclusive answer.
Why, if any such writ came demanding, just as the hon. gentleman with eloquent reiteration demands, by what right we are sitting here, we at once tell him: By the authority of those two bodies-if I may apply the expression to both of them-by whose authority alone any Government can hold power; we sit here by right of the fact that the Prime Minister of this country to-day, being called upon by the representative of the Sovereign to form a Government, that is to say, enjoying the confidence of the Sovereign, found that selection ratified by an expression of confidence of the majority of the Parliament of this country. There is no other warrant by which any man can hold the office of Prime Minister, there is no other warrant by which any man can be justified in occupying a position as a member of the Cabinet in any Government. All this elaboration and discussion about a mandate to the Government led by the right hon. member for Kings, (Sir Robert Borden), as distinguished from a mandate to the Government led by the right hon. gentleman who now leads it, is all built upon theories elaborated in the imaginations of the hon. gentlemen vcho set them forth.

I shall* not go into any examination of authorities on a question of that kind. Anybody, I venture to say, who knows anything about-I do not say the letter, but the spirit of the British constitution, ;"the spirit that giveth life", as my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition knows-is aware that the great distinctive feature of the British constitution which differentiates it from all those constitutions which have not directly and without distinction followed it, is the fact that its centre is the principle of parliamentary government, and that under it the great power is Ihe Parliament of the country.	[DOT]
Now, there is no doubt that the parliament of the country takes its authority from the people, but it takes the authority that the people give it, and when the people- vote for a member of parliament they vote for a man whom they are willing to charge with the function of governing during the period for which the lajsv and the constitution provide; whom they are willing to trust in regard to what may arise during that period and charge with the responsibility of dealing with it. They give him a mandate-a mandate that has to run during a fixed period, unless in the interval a Government having the confidence of the majority of parliament comes to the conclusion that by. reason of some great and new question that has arisen, or possibly, by reason of some crisis that the country is facing, it is desirable and necessary that there shall be a dissolution. But a Government that is to pronounce upon that is a Government that has the confidence of a majority of this Parliament. So long, therefore, as a majority of this Parliament stands in agreement to give its confidence to a Government the leader of which the Crown has reposed its confidence in by calling upon him to form a ministry, you have the government contemplated by the British constitution. And there are reasons for that which have no connection with a desire to cling to power and all the other sordid motives which the hon. gentleman attributed to us the other evening and poured out in the series of more or less meaningless invectives with which he closed his speech. One of the great benefits, one of the great advantages, of the British constitution, is the stability that it gives to the country. The British constitution never contemplated that the electors were going to select representatives so unfit to cope with the problems that might arise that as each particular question came up they would have to run back to the people to find out what the people wanted. The people elected men in whom they had confidence and charged them with the responsibility of dealing with the situations that might present themselves. We would afford a sorry spectacle if we should accept and act upon the doctrine of unconstitutionality which has been preached, with the result that we should have a series of powerless, spineless, irresponsible parliaments-parliaments composed of men who, though seeing before them clearly the course which their duty called upon them to follow, would not have had the courage to form their own decision and courageously follow that course, but would say " Oh, no, I had not thought of that at the last election and I did not talk about it; let me run back to the people and find out whether or not, perchance, there is at this moment some wave of public feeling that may run counter to that: to me the course is clear as to what is best for the country, but I do not care for that. I am the man who was charged with the duty of doing what I conscientiously believed to be best for the country, but that is nothing to me; perhaps there is some current of public opinion running counter; it may turn and run in the other direction to-morrow; let me hurry and get there before the current changes." That is not the British conception of government; that is not the British conception of parliament.
The hon. leader of the Opposition went over a whole list of countries that had had elections since the conclusion of the war and wanted to know whether the people of Canada were so inferior to the people of those countries that they should not be gratified with having an election. Well, in the first place, in the case of most of these countries the election was held because the parliamentary term had expired. In the case of the United States, the election was held because the constitution said that they should have an election at that particular time. Let me, in parenthesis, referring to this country where there is government " of the people, by the people and for the people." point to the fact that the people in November declared their absolute want of confidence in the existing government of the United States and that that government is carrying on still. That is according to their constitution; ours is a vast improvement on that, no doubt. I mention it only as showing how figurative all these words are.

I had said that I would not cite authorities. Let me make one exception. I shall not delve into the past; anyone who will study the works of the men who were the real authors of this Constitution may see for themselves. In that connection I would ask my hon. friend, who shares with me, If I may judge from the citations he so frequently makes from his writings and speeches, a high admiration for that eminent statesman who had much to do with the building up of the British Constitution, Edmund Burke - I would ask him to read his work and see what the constitutional system of government is under the British Constitution. Last session someone did say that Burke had gone out of fashion; that his ideas were, as John P. Robinson said, "exploded idees." I shall not go back to that, but I will read the statements of one gentleman, a statesman of our own country, who said, referring to this very question:
I take issue with my hon. friend from North Toronto and my hon. friend from Brandon when they tell us that the Parliament of Canada is debarred from dealing with any question which has not been discussed at the previous general election.
Just note the contention that is made here.
That is not in accord with the constitutional history of Great Britain or of Canada either, as I have read it. Let me ask my hon. friends what mandate had the Government of Lord Elgin in 1853, when it went to tVashington *to obtain, Reciprocity!? Hadi that question ever been put before the people? Had it been an issue the last time the people's representatives had gone before them? Not at all. Let me ask, further, what mandate had the Government in 1864 to put through Parliament the resolution which proposed Confederation a Had the question of Confederation ever been put before the people of United Canada? No, not a word about it had ever been heard,. The only question then raised was that of representation by population.
Just as we are told now that the only question in the last election was the carrying on of the war.
Yet the Government of Sir John Macdonald and the Hon. George Brown-because the two were united on that occasion-brought in a resolution which was nothing more nor le3s than a complete transformation of our then condition. When Canada assented in 1871 :o the Fishery stipulation in the Washington Treaty of that year, had that question ever been put before the people? No, it was unknown to them. It never had been debated before.
I am sorry that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not here; it might do him good to hear this.
In the face, therefore, of these precedents, It is childish for any man to challenge the
IMr. Doherty.]
right of this Government to follow the course it is doing.
If my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition were here he would sit back scandalized-scandalized as he is at this Government to-day. He would sit back, no doubt, and say to us: What office-holders; what men among those who love the loaves and the fishes, who make broad their phylacteries, who enlarge the borders of their garments, who love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the marketplace, - who make clean the outside of the cup and platter and within are full of extortions and excess; - what man of this description is it that uttered the words I have just been listening to?-Tell me that I may pour out upon his devoted head the vials of my indignation, that I may search the Scriptures to find, if possible, even additional expression^ of Scriptural vituperation with which I may forever confound the name and memory of that unworthy man, that officeholder, that clinger-on to office, that lover of the loaves and fishes and all the rest of it. And, of course, I would give him a little time so that he might, in some degree regain his calm, his selfcontrol, and be able to restrain himself, and then I would tell him that the man who pronounced those words, the man who followed that doctrine consistently throughout his life, was that great Canadian statesman, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. whose successor the leader of the Opposition of to-day is; the man of whom I fancy the proudest thing that the present Opposition leader has to say for himself is that he was this man's devoted follower through many years; the man with regard to whom we are all prepared to say that, whatever may have been our differences with him, we respected and admired him and we especially recognized in him a distinguished authority upon constitutional questions of this kind.
I do not think I need go further to make the justification from the constitutional point of view of the position of the present Prime Minister and of this Government in refusing to be stampeded into a general election. We have a duty to do. The public of this country gave us a mandate and imposed a duty upon us, and that mandate was and that duty was to protect the interests of Canada to the best of our judgment and our capacity, until the time should come when our mandate expired under the law or when in our honest con-

viction the interests of the country called for a change, not merely in the Government, but in the Parliament of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite have cast insult and slur upon this Government. Do they realise that they are casting insult and .slur upon every member of this Parliament? This Government is not here of its own volition; it is here because it possesses the confidence of the majority of this Parliament, and because the majority of this Parliament is convinced that the moment has not come when they would be justified in surrendering the mandate that the people gave them, when they would be justified in departing from the performance of the duty that the people, when they gave their representatives the mandate, imposed upon them.
"But," we are told, "there have been byelections, and the by-elections are going against you and they show that the public has no confidence in you." And we were referred to a list of by-elections as establishing conclusively a complete overturn in public opinion in this country. Just let us look at those by-elections for a moment. We were told that there were seventeen by-elections, in which five Liberals, and five supporters of this or the preceding Government, were re-elected. As regards those constituencies, surely we have conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no change of opinion in those constituencies from the opinion that prevailed in 1917. As regards them we are asked to say that we have lost the confidence of the public because the people who always voted against this Government are voting against it still. As regards those constituencies, the position is absolutely identical with what it was when this House was elected. What is left? With regard to constituencies in which there has been a change, let me in the first place point out that there has been no change in the direction of the party led by the leader of the Opposition, save in one case where he succeeded in getting a minority, a small minority comparatively, of the total vote of the constituency, placed in such a favourable position that it was able to say who should be the member. As regards the other constituencies they all went to gentlemen desirious of securing special representation for a special class in this Parliament. We have yet to have any evidence that the electors who elected them elected them because they wanted a dissolution of this Parliament. All that the election of those gentlemen established is that the electors of those constituencies thought it
was desirable that there should be in this House greater representation of the particular class to which they belonged. I have not heard it said that in any of those elections-Certainly it has not been said that in all those elections, the dissolution of this House was made an issue.
So, what is the proposition? Because there are six constituencies in this country which have pronounced their adherence to a party that was not in existence in 1917, you have to asume that there is so violent and widespread a change in the opinions of the electorate of this country that this House, having barely completed its third year, should immediately dissolve. Can any proposition be more utterly without of foundation?
Then, there is the one constituency to which I have referred, which had not supported the Opposition party in 1917, a constituency which has returned, by a minority vote, an adherent of the Liberal party.
I would just like to call attention to that election, in the first place from the point of view of its bearing upon this vote which we are about to take, and in the second place from the point of view of the light it throws upon the sincerity of those who are here professing to want an election. In the first place, what is the lesson of that election? The one clear lesson that results from that election is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Peterborough, whatever else they do or do not want, do not want an election. Let me explain why. Who precipitated that election and upon what issue? There was in this House a man to whom we must pay the tribute that he sincerely wanted an election, and he gave his proof,-he took his political life in his hands. He went out to the people of Peterborough and he asked them for an endorsement of the proposition that we ought to have an election now. How many votes did he get and how many people voted against that man who had made the issue, thus making it clear that they did not want an election? There were altogether something like 12,800 votes cast, and how many of them said they wanted an election? The figures show that: 2,595 electors in Peterborough wanted an election; 4,093 said: We do not want an election, we are out to fight the man who raised the standard of a new election, we want him defeated, what we want is a Liberal member in this existing House; 2,811 said we do not want an election, we want a member in this existing House to support the present Government; 2,319 said: We do

not want an election, get out and beat that man Burnham, we want a Farmer member in this existing house; 1,103 said the same thing, we do not want an election; we will not follow the standard of the man who made this election necessary; we want a Labour member in this House. The result was that you had 8,828 voters in Peterborough who upon the issue: Election or no election, said: We do not want an election; there is something else we want more. You had only 2,595 who said they wanted an election.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Very strong.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And then hon. gentlemen opposite come here and say: Here is the evidence that the people of Canada are clamouring for an election. Why, two-thirds of the people of Peterborough would rather have something else than an election.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What about the supporters of Mr. Gordon?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have been
voiceless on the subject of whether they wanted an election. All I know is that they wanted elected, at the risk of defeating the man who raised the standard of an election or no election, a Liberal member to sit in this House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He will tell us when he comes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Probably he will. When he gets here, he will probably be anxious to forget the platform upon which he stood, and the speeches which he made. Probably he will be anxious to have us all forget how very far away he has got 'from the platform of 1919 which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) showed us-[DOT] with the book closed-last night; he was very careful to make no reference to that platform, which all hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have got so far away from and of which the hon. leader of the Opposition is so thoroughly ashamed that when he comes to meet this House, not being able to reconcile the speeches for and the speeches against that platform which he has made on his tour, swaying from one side to the other as he passed from one constituency to another, that he simply takes refuge behind his amendment as if he were saying to himself: Well, as a result of all these things I have said, I have got the cards so hopelessly muddled that I do not think there is anything for it but to call for a new deal.

The Peterborough election also throws a light on the sincerity of this present clamour among hon. gentlemen opposite for an election. The hon. leader of the Opposition has said: The one thing necessary to the salvation of this country to-day is an election; I am here to turn out the Government for the sake of getting an election to-day. But what did he do when he learned that somebody with that doctrine as his sole doctrine, somebody willing "to put aside all questions of party differences had nailed to the mast the standard of an immediate election, and had gone out and asked the Peterborough electors to endorse his stand? Of course, this hon. gentleman, sincere believer in an immediate election as the one salvation of Canada, rallied to the support of that man. Of course he said: Shame on the man who talks party politics, shame on the man who would divide the people in the face of this supreme issue,-the one great object is to have an election to-day; gather your forces together, and let us, all who want a general election, vote together so that our votes may be effective. That is what you would expect if you did not know the leader of His Majesty's Opposition; but knowing the leader of His Majesty's Opposition, you were not disappointed when you saw him call for his horses and call for his men, and organize his party to go out and make war on the man who had ventured to say we ought to have an election. What a light that election throws on the sincerity of this .clamour for an election! This House is asked to say that the great paramount issue is an election or no election, that on its decision the salvation of this country, nay, perhaps more than that, the integrity of the British constitution depends. We on this side of the House who may in the past have belonged to different parties are appealed to to sink every consideration other than that, and vote in order that the country may be saved by a new election; and we are so asked by men fresh from the fray, glorying in their success over the man who preached the doctrine of an immediate election. I ask you now, how much faith can you put in the sincerity of this amendment?
I should hardly perhaps go back to them, because they are so insignificant, but the hon. member for Maisonneuve gave some considerations about the requisitioning of our ships during the war, about the cattle embargo, about the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine carrying the

Canadian ensign, and about some difficulty with respect the the Gold Coast and Nigeria, all bearing upon our not being a nation.
As to the ships requisitioned in the war, the Canadian nation requisitioned her ships and put them at the service of the Allied nations, just as the Canadian nation sent her boys to fight for the common cause. I ask you in what respect that derogates from our national independence. As to the cattle embargo, I give that up. That you can find in the cattle embargo- that is, in one nation of this Empire, for its own protection, even as against other nations of the Empire putting on an embargo-any evidence that we are not distinct nations rather puzzles me. If anything, I should think it was evidence that we are distinct nations. Then we are asked, why do the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine now carry the Canadian ensign when the Niobe was not allowed to do so two years ago. I do not know it to be a fact, but I would say it is only a further evidence of the development to which I have pointed. We have privileges to-day that we did not have nine or ten years ago, and surely this only goes to show the development of our recognition as a nation. As to the Gold Coast and Nigeria, had the hon. gentleman paid attention he would have seen that in the item referring to the difficulty of, our directly negotiating with them, it was pointed out that Canada had outgrown these limitations which rest on the other parts of the Empire, but that Nigeria and the Gold Coast find themselves tied up, so it was not for any want of right on the part of Canada that we could not have gone on. It was, unfortunately, because the Gold Coast and Nigeria, being still Crown colonies, had no right to act on their own behalf. And the very item which the hon. gentleman read pointed out that fact. I have read to the House what Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier thought on this doctrine of mandates and the power of Parliament to deal with matters that had not been discussed at the general election. I may say that he made these observations in the course of a debate upon Reciprocity during which it did appear to hon. gentlemen then sitting on the other side of the House that there was need for a new election, because there was the proposal of a great new project in which was bound up not only the commercial but the national future of this country. It is
true that Sir Wilfrid Laurier ultimately gave an election, but he was careful to tell us in the speech he made, when the motion of closure was before the House, that he did not do so because our doctrine was right. He was very clear on that. He never flinched from the doctrine he laid down, but he told us that we should have the election because we had been naughty boys and had obstructed him. I do not want to express anything of a critical character on this point, but it did look a little like the case of the unjust judge of the Scriptures who yielded to the widow's insistence-not because she was right but because of her importunity. I merely wish to point this out in order that I may not be told that after all he did dissolve Parliament.
Now, in the course of his observations, the hon. member for Maisonneuve gave us several examples of what he considered to be deadly parallels, one of which was that of the Reciprocity debate and another, a parallel with some English election that occurred after the South African war. There, he pointed out, all of the contending parties opposed to the government came together- so differently from the way they did in Peterborough; if the parties here had taken the same course we might have begun to believe in the sincerity of those who are clamouring for a general election. In the meantime I only desire to call attention to the disparity between the two cases. We had another parallel, in which Mr. Asquith made a speech and talked about the policy of his adversaries as being one of zig-zag and-Oh, I have forgotten what else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: See-saw.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gentleman can tell me some of the others. Well, I listened to the hon. gentleman's remarks and then I thought of their application, and I could not help thinking of the clear-cut position taken in the speech from the Throne, and of the variegated policies of the leader of the Opposition and of the fact that, challenged to do it, he absolutely declines to tell us what definite policy, if any, he has. And then I wondered to whom the see-saw and the zig-zag applied. I am like the friend of Antonio in the play, who felt called upon to thank the Jew who had furnished him with the words which he wanted to use: "A very Daniel come to judgment" -a very see-saw and a very zig-zag! I wish the hon. gentleman would tell me the other adjectives, because they are so thor-

oughly applicable to the line of conduct of his own leader, a line of conduct in which the hon. gentleman apparently so complacently follows him. Mr. Speaker, I feel I should apologize for having devoted so much time in dealing with so small material. However, I have at last finished.
It is a gratification to me to be able, in my closing remarks, to join in one expression of opinion that fell from the lips of the hon. gentleman. He expressed the aspiration for unity among the people of this country. Let me say that in that hope I most heartily and most sincerely join; and I should be taking-no risks in saying that all hon. members on this side of the House endorse my sentiments. While we have duties with regard to the peace of the world, duties which we shall be able to perform, and while we have the duty of looking after the material interests of the people of this country, which come before any interests connected with the outside world, I am prepared to agree that we, all of us on both sides of the House, have one first great duty, and that is the duty of each trying to do his part to bring about and increase and preserve a feeling of unity between the different peoples of Canada. In making the eloquent appeal on this subject which he did, the hon. member for Maisonneuve did little more than re-echo the words of the Prime Minister of this Country as he uttered them first at Portage-la-Prairie, then in our good city of Sherbrooke, and also in our better city of Montreal, and as he has tried to send them broadcast throughout this country, extending his voice and hand, to greet every man, of whatever class, creed or political party, who is willing to join earnestly in the work of bringing about unity-observe, I do not say uniformity- among the people of this country I need not add anything to the eloquence of the hon. member for Maisonneuve further than to say that I join heartily in the hope he expressed in this respect. I might suggest to him, however, that he be good enough to have a heart to heart talk with some of the gentlemen who sit on. the same side of the House with him. I say this in no spirit of criticism, but perhaps to those hon. members he might point out acceptably, if I cannot, that it is not the best way of reaching unity to maintain the determination not to forget things that have happened in the past which largely, through misapprehension on one part or the other, have conduced to destroy the spirit of unity. One hon. gentleman the

other evening said he was prepared to forgive but not to forget. I would ask" him to think over a little what is the practical value of forgiveness on the part of one who continues to treasure up the memory of what he believes to be a wrong, and who, treasuring up that memory, seeks to keep alive the determination to have satisfaction for the wrong which he believes to have been inflicted. I am not here to plead in condonation of things that may have been wrong from one direction or another and which may have contributed to separate our people. But I am here in all honestly and sincerity to plead for a spirit all round of readiness to forget, asking only to ,be convinced that there is sincerity to-day in the desire to heal old wounds and to close up the gaps that have been created and that divide our people into different camps.
I appeal to gentlemen on this side as well as to gentlemen opposite to give thought to the necessity of the performance of that great duty of gathering together the Canadian people, and to give thought to what each of one of them may do, even if it involves the forgetting of some things, to bring about that most desirable end. As I have already said the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) in making an appeal for unity only re-echoed the words of the right hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) pronounced on different occasions and in different parts of this country. I have before me just a citation from his words on one occasion which I would like to give the House and with which I shall close these altogether too-prolonged observations. Speaking in the City of Montreal on the subjects to which the hon. gentleman referred, the Prime Minister said:
All I want is a fair field to show, in the practical task of government, that my desire to do something useful in the work of reconciliation is an honest desire, and that what I have already said I mean. Once more I' repeat that on this subject I am secure in one regard:	In all the years of my public life
I have uttered no words that now need to be recalled; nor have I ever been a party to a statute that in a single line was unfair to English or to French. All those who persist in attributing to me the language of prejudice or hostility have for seven months failed to produce a sentence from the record of twelve years to support the calumny and stand today as convicted perverters of the facts.
I am anxious for a fair distribution of the duties of Government. There is not such a fair distribution today, and my great anxiety is to be certain from week to week that I am not in the smallest degree responsible for a continuance of the unfairness that now exists.
I believe also in the fair distribution of public offices of ever}- kind, and I think that both the

great races' should recognize that a careful adherence to that principle is essential if we are ever going to get along. Such was the conviction and the practice of the best statesmen of the past, and we cannot forget their precepts now.
Here I leave the subject. Recalling the eloquent words of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and calling attention to the equally eloquent words of my leader, I conclude with this appeal: That these words, this seed which they were intending to sow, may not fall upon barren ground but may produce four-fold and four times four-fold.
Let me in conclusion say that there will be one advantage at all events in the defeat of this amendment which I have no doubt will be reached within a few days, that it will afford the right hon. gentleman who leads the House the opportunity of proving the irrefutable truth that the words that he uttered were sincerely and absolutely meant. Let me further appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to be fair, not to lend themselves to the keeping up of enmities and hostilities between our different races, our different peoples, and our different provinces, by attributing to the Prime Minister statements and sentiments which, at all events up to the present, nobody has been able to prove the existence of. I am confident that the people of the province of Quebec-whether they support him politically or are opposed to him-ere long will have the opportunity of realizing that in the present leader of this Government they have no enemy. I have known him since he first came into this House, and he has administered different offices always very closely under my eye. I remember with pride that he was my Solicitor-General and that for years-for some years at all events-I was his chief. I remember with pride now that he occupies to-day the position of my chief, and that I have the privilege and honour of following him. And let me pay him this testimony, as a mere measuring out of simple justice, that throughout my years of intimate relationship with him, I have never been able to discover any small feeling of bigotry, or prejudice, hostility or antipathy, to any class or creed within this Dominion; and above all I have never been able to discern the slightest indication of anything but the most friendly feeling and disposition to my old province of Quebec. Hon. gentlemen opposite, I fancy, will be fair enough to recognize that while they constitute the majority of the representatives from Quebec and while they
represent the majority of people of that province, that I too, and my colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), have a claim upon the same province. In our hearts there beats as strong an affection for that old province as exists in the heart of any hon. gentleman sitting opposite, and let me say that imbued with that feeling I would be in the government of no man that was inspired in the slightest degree by any spirit of hostility to the people and the province that I love.


Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse) :: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that it is not my intention to detain the House beyond a few minutes. The
5 p.m. speech from the Throne with which the session was opened is a beautiful negligible document. And that was to be expected. A Government which has outstayed its mandate and forfeited the confidence of the people, and which continues to cling to office in direct defiance of recognized public sentiment, is not likely to be one to originate or to initiate progressive and vigorous legislation. It is marking time; it is frightened to march forward, it is unwilling to make way. But, Sir, Canada is facing great questions of re-adjustment. There are big and pressing issues to be dealt with; yet if ever in the annals of government there has been an era of ineffective leadership it is at this present juncture. The speech from the Throne makes it abundantly clear that effective leadership cannot be expected from this disintegrated Unionist ministry. The Government has no policy to lay before the people in order to provide for the serious problem of increasing unemployment. The fulfilment of dismal prophecies made during the war has come with the icy blast of winter, and the problem of unemployment finds Canada unprepared. After the last two years of reconstruction the Government throws up its hands in despair, and appeals to the Provincial Governments and local municipalities to find a way out of the difficulty. What has become Mr. Speaker, of all these Commissions, of all these Boards of all sizes, complexions and descriptions that were so much in evidence? The Government has only been feeding parasites to make believe that they were taking steps and precautions in anticipation of the period of economic readjustment. Where are these gentlemen who personally conducted in this House excursions, unfolding to us the beautiful panorama of flaming fur-

naces, belching smoke-stacks, and happy men at work with full dinner pails? Instead we read the sad story that the dreaded spectre of the soup kitchen has made its appearance. Where is the distinguished gentleman whom we had the pleasure of seeing only twice in this House last session when he had been hurriedly despatched from Toronto headquarters to enrapture us with the delightful strain that, Liberalism meant panic and that Unionism meant prosperity? Why, Mr. Speaker, the last time that hon. gentleman was seen upon the floor of this House-and you remember the occasion?-he was trying to induce us to continue to remain bondsmen of Sir Joseph Flavelle and of Mackenzie and Mann. "Carry on! Carry on!" he said, those were his last words to the Government. That harp has since ceased its strain; and the Government has changed its name. Why, the truth is that-
The harp that once through Parliament's halls, The soul of prosperity music shed,
Now hangs as mute on Parliament's walls As if the nightingale from Leeds was dead.
But you have soup kitchens, and the burden is upon the hon. gentlemen opposite to explain the condition of thousands of men begging for work and of reduced wages to those fortunate enough to have employment. This is the melancholy of the acme of the "Carry on" administration.
This debate, Mr. Speaker, has been proceeding for a little time and charming things have been said. We have also witnessed the grotesque performance of a new self-constituted John the Baptist creeping into the National Liberal Conservative desert in search of grasshoppers to alleviate his treacherous hunger. Beautiful addresses also were delivered on the League of nations, or rather the League of Empires. To this subject, I desire to make a slight reference.
I understand very well that the - League which we were forced to approve of in this House could not leap full-grown into life, and I became convinced, after reading the speeches of our Canadian representatives which they recently delivered at Geneva, that the League must revise the Treaty or the Treaty will destroy the League. After hearing the addresses of the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and of the hon. gentleman from Durham (Mr. Rowell), although they eloquently stated that the League is to be the greatest forward movement in the world's history, yet it is plain to me that it contains the germ of future 
wars; and after hearing this afternoon the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), with his habitually lucid explanation, allow me to say, Sir, that the whole subject is darker than ever. The world is offered only an ideal. No word has been so misapplied in recent years as idealism. There is something splendid I grant you, in aspiring to the remote and the unattainable, providing it does not make us contemptuous of the slow steps towards better things that are attainable. But there are many kinds of idealists. Some like Darius Green, make themselves wings and mount to the ridgepole in a glow of aspiration, and leap out quick in the pleasant sunshiny air. But there are other idealists also, and they are of the kind I should like to see at Geneva, idealists more practical, who fashion their wings with due regard for the law of strains and stresses, who have a wholesome respect for the law of gravitation, and who will not mix trading stamps with moral issues. What is the use of sending men to Gevena to talk disarmament when on their return in their own Parliament by their votes they cheer the hearts of munition makers? Just so long as the big Powers who control the Supreme Council of the League retain all the important offices within the constructive programme of the League, and just so long as they will not agree to,disarmament, just so long as they will keep on mistrusting one another, just so long as they will refuse to forego national selfishness, the whole thing is-pardon me the expression, Mr. Speaker-"eye-wash."	Our representatives will only be enjoying a delightful trip at the expense of the Canadian people, just to have the pleasure of signing their names for Canada on the dotted lines already prepared for them, and the privilege of making speeches, which after all, to my mind, amounts to nothing. Sixty thousand Canadians walked their way to Golgotha and are now sleeping their last sleep on the fields of Flanders, and their actions, Sir, speak louder than all the speeches that can be delivered at Geneva by our representatives. They gave up their lives to end all wars, and what I should like to see, Sir, would be our representatives going to Geneva with a message from the Canadian people to the Supreme Council, which is the mouthpiece of the Great Powers, that they must agree to disarmament in order that Canada may remain true to her pledge to those who fought to end all war. Warmaking has been the sport of kings and

of sporty statesmen, not of the people. It has cost the sportiest kings their jobs, and the world is sick of sporty statesmen.
Sir, we have heard hon. gentlemen opposite offer a defence for their remaining in power. It has been plainly stated from this side of the House that the Government are carrying on without a mandate, and British practices and precedents have been quoted pro and con. I have this to say, Mr. Speaker:	This Tory Government and
its recent converts profess to find great merit in the so-called Unionist party, comparing it with the British coalition. But let jis not forget that in the Mother Country men of all parties formed a real union for the purposes of prosecuting the war. Here, where a different sense of political honour obtains, the combination has been made for the purpose of winning an election. In [DOT] England no one party accused the other of disloyalty; they did not make a pretence of friendly overtures in order to unite one section of the country against the other. They did not pass a Franchise Act by which they could control the elections. After the armistice there was an election in England; in Canada some of our Unionist gentlemen refuse to go to the people, keeping only their own selfish ends in view. I cannot make references to all these hon. gentlemen one after the other, but you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to pay a little tribute to a gentleman from the prairies, that great Colossus of immigration. I well remember that on the first of May, 1917, the hon: gentleman gave an interview to a Saskatchewan paper with regard to the provision which has,been made for free wheat. He said: "Yes, it is great news, and we have to see to it that in the next Parliament we have free everything." At that time everything looked dark and gloomy for the Allied cause. I am not questioning the hon. gentleman's entry into the Cabinet in 1917, but he is the same gentleman who denounced the financial ring of Toronto, denounced the Borden Government as incompetent and retroactive, and denounced in no measured terms the government of "big business." I have said that I shall not comment upon the hon. gentleman's entry into the Cabinet in 1917. But, Sir, in his address in the House on the 11th of June, 1919, he said: "I say if I wanted to make a hero of myself, the road is quite clear to me." But he preferred to remain where he was. You remember, Sir, how tears ran down the cheeks of hon. gentleman when he deliberately sentenced himself to bread
crumbs and cold tea in the portfolio of Immigration. In his recent political tour of the West with the right hon. leader of the Government he said, as quoted from the prairies, that he had changed morally and mentally and that he had decided to spend eternity with the monopolists whom he had denounced all his life. Well, what idea can you have of the patriotism of a gentleman who can perform such a somersault?
I will not be as severe to him as he was to himself, but allow me to say of him that he was like Hosea Biglow's politician:
A marciful Providence fashioned him holler O' purpose that he might his principles smaller.
If that is a little too strong, Mr. Speaker,
I can give a better one. He at least believes, as Hosea did:
A genuine statesman must be on his guard.
If he must have beliefs, not to believe 'em too hard.
Bismarck used to say that Salisbury was a lath painted to look like iron. The hon. member from Moosejaw (Mr. Calder) is a Tory painted to look like a Liberal-he never was a Liberal; he posed as one. Like the coalitionists under Sir John A. Macdonald who refused to follow George Brown when he withdrew from the coalition, these hon. gentlemen have become reactionaries -makers of franchise Acts and gerrymander Acts.
Some hon. gentlemen have talked of apples and of the tariff, but, Sir, the issue before the House is the preservation of our constitutional treasures, our national heritage, which the Government is unscrupulously pawning every day without authority and without mandate. The issue is the disrespect of our laws, such as is involved in the building of a mercantile marine at a cost of $75,000,000, in connection with which contracts were awarded without tenders. The issue is the vicious railway policy of the Government, which is not established on a business foundation, and which makes the country responsible for the interest on millions of dollars' worth of obligations and deficiency in earnings. The issue is the lavish expenditures for militia purposes, amounting to eighteen or twenty millions of dollars, and the miserable pittance for eighteen small experimental farms. The issue is that the Government has created a paradise for its bosom friends, the profiteers, so that readjustment on a sane basis is practically impossible. The issue is that conscienceless rascals were permitted to accumulate outrageous profits and slip away with the spoils, leaving the business man behind holding the bag. The most discouraging

feature of the situation is that a spineless Department of Justice has made it impossible for the irresponsible shoe-string worker to be placed in such a position that he could be made to disgorge. The issue is the Government's scheme to deprive the people of their right to make any gradual political readjustment with due regard to economic conditions between 1911 and such time as they may choose.
Sir, a general election now would bring into Parliament no more representatives than at present, but it would open the door to the election of representatives who more closely reflect the vision of men who love freedom and hate autocracy.
The Prime Minister's extremist policy is calculated to dam the gradual flow of Canadian opinion and to interfere with the gradual process of parliamentary government. The last redistribution followed the census of 1911, and there was only one election on this redistribution, the wartime election of 1917. Enough has been said of this election that we need talk no more about it. No coalition candidate can pretend that he was elected on domestic issues, so that, excepting the 1917 election, no general election was held on this redistribution. Therefore, anyone voting against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is only a party to the Prime Minister's scheme to thwart the will of the people, to carry parliament through 1911 to 1922, and such men should be known to their constituents as men who refuse to face an election because they know they have lost the confidence of the electorate. I am not afraid to go before my constituents, to meet my judges.
I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) say, during his long address this afternoon, that the Government had a moral issue, Moral issue! Eternal issue! Give us an opportunity to meet the Knights of Morality. Speaking for my constituents and myself, we have had to endure many things during the last years. Dr. Crane used to say that, in this world one cannot get what he wants, without getting a whole lot of truck he does not want. Desires may be pure and unmixed, but the gratification thereof is spotted. We have thrown on the shores of time all the truck we do not want. We forgive everything; but we do not forget and will never forget the rampant super-loyalty, pathetically stupid, of the junkers of the last election, whose delight it was to pillory the French Canadians as a body, and who have committed the worst political crime in Canada's his-

tory. We will not put on the shelves of oblivion the malignity with which the loyalty and patriotism of that great Canadian and Empire builder, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the rank and file of the Liberal party, were openly and maliciously assailed in such terms as " traitor," " disloyal," " yellow-back," " quitter," " pro-German," -all that to win a party triumph. To us this crime and sin against the nation has struck deep and far, and every true patriot to-day, now that the storm of rancour and abuse is over, contemplates with dismay and horror the national wreckage wrought by fire-eaters and reactionaries. We will remember the mischief that those impudent junkers have done by their uncalled-for, and unreasoning and unreasonable " namecalling " of men and women whose character, citizenship, loyalty and patriotism ring as true as steel, and whose only offence was that of differing with those super-heated patriots in regard to the way in which Canada should have taken her part in the war. We hope now that when the junkers' temperature goes down to normal, they will have the saving grace and the redeeming quality of commonsense that will make plain to them the assinine exhibition that they have made of themselves and what a terrible wound they have inflicted on our national unity. Laurier's life-work of Canadian unification has been demolished, and to heal the wound, to mend the breach that has been produced by stupidity stampeded by bigotry and fanaticism, there is only one remedy-an immediate appeal to the people. This is the humble prayer of the electors of Bellechasse, which I, their humble representative, wish to lay at the foot of your Throne.


Mr. FREDERICK JOHN FULTON (Cariboo) :: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate my hon. friend, who has just spoken, on having had delegated to him the important task of informing this House what the issues are which the Opposition propose to lay before the people at the next general election, in the near future, if they succeed -as is very unlikely-in securing a favourable vote on this amendment? We have had a debate lasting now for one week, and this is the first time that the House has heard any of the issues which the Opposition party proposes to lay before the electors of the country. I have not hitherto obtruded myself to any great extent upon the time of this House; but I feel that the amendment now before you, with its result one way or the other, is so important that I shall depart from my usual custom of

registering a silent vote; and I am impelled to give some reasons why I oppose the amendment.
Before doing so, I should like to add my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address. It is generally conceded that the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply are of a very high order, and it will be admitted that the speeches made this session have not fallen below the standard which is usually expected on such occasions. More particularly would I like to congratulate, and I am pleased to be able to do so, the seconder, not because I would wish to make any comparison between the two speeches, but because he is a gentleman whom I have known for many years and because he represents a constituency adjoining mine, which he and I have seen develop from almost nothing to its present wonderful state of production. It was his maiden effort in this House, on the second day of his membership, and I think that the majority of the members will agree with me in concluding that his constituents have made no error of judgment in selecting him as their representative, and that he is one of whom they have reason to be proud.
Mr. Speaker, I have read over the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition, and I find that it contains three assertions. With these I should like to deal. His first assertion is that the present Government does not possess the confidence of this House. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up any time with regard to that assertion because it is one that can only be tested by the vote which will be taken at the close of this debate. The vote will show whether or not the present Government possesses the confidence of this House. '
His second assertion is that the Government does not possess the confidence of the country, and his third assertion that the retention of office by the Government constitutes a usurpation of the powers of popular Government. Dealing with the second assertion, the leader of the Opposition tried to prove it by two arguments. His first point was that he made that statement on the strength of the results of the by-elections which have taken place since December 1917. That point has already been dealt with fully by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice, and I do not propose to add anything to what they have said, except this:	Out of
the six seats which the leader of the
Opposition states the Government has lost, there is only one in which a candidate running as one of) the Liberal Opposition party has been returned, and in his case it would appear that the platform on which he presented himself to the electors of his constituency was not the platform of the Liberal party, but one of his own. The second point which the leader of the Opposition endeavoured to make was that he made that assertion as a result of his personal observation.	Now I have not had the
opportunity Which	he has had (of
observing the feeling of the people or this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, for he has made a tour of the country, but I must say that I think I can better judge the feelings of the people of my own constituency than can the leader of the Opposition, and so far as my constituency is concerned, so far as my observation goes, I do not think his assertion is correct. ' If that is so, I think his assertion cannot be relied upon with respect to the whole country. I have yet to have a single Liberal who supported me in the general election of 1917, and there were many 6f them, come to me and intimate that he thought after the termination of the war I should resign my seat, or that he thought the Government should resign. Again, as in the case of the first assertion, the truth can only be tested by a general election itself. When we get that, we shall know whether or not the assertion is true and not until then.
The third assertion is that the Government has usurped the powers of popular government. That, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is the most important assertion of the three and probably the only one which contains any element of danger for the Government. I say it contains an element of danger for this reason. The people of any democratic country will resent most strongly anything of that kind, any attempt on the part of the Government of the country to usurp the powers of popular government. They will stand for almost anything rather than that. But, as the Minister of Justice has said, if a statement is made frequently enough, in the end it will probably come to be believed, not only by the person who makes it, but by some of those who hear it; and there is the danger. This is an assertion which has been made on every platform on which the leader of the Opposition has spoken during the last two months. It is an insidious statement because it is one which, if believed in, will

be most strongly resented by the electors of the country. What grounds has the leader of the Opposition or any hon. gentleman opposite for making any such assertion? What are the facts? What are the arguments which they bring forward in support of their fact?
Their premises are that the Union Government was elected solely for the purpose of dealing with the war, that that was the only issue in the election of 1917. I grant, Mr. Speaker, that it was the main issue, but I do not grant that it was the only issue. We have in every general election some main issue, some issue that is singled out and on which as a matter of fact the whole election is really fought. It is certainly true that in the election of 1917 the main issue, the one outstanding and overshadowing issue, was that of the prosecution of the war, and in comparison with that all other questions faded into insignificance. But when the statement is made that that was the only issue, I think I need only refer to the manifesto which was published, containing the line of policy which would be followed by the Union Government if returned to power. That manifesto contained twelve planks. I have a copy before me and I find that of those twelve not more than two or possibly three are confined to matters relating to the war. The others are all matters that apply equally to times of peace as to the period of the war. Many of them do not even refer to problems that arise out of the war. For example, take the second, Civil Service Reform. That has nothing to do with the war or the prosecution of the war; the third, the Extension of the Franchise to Women; the fifth, A Strong Progressive Policy of Immigration and Colonization; the seventh, Development of Transportation Facilities; eighth, Reduction of Public Expenditure; tenth, Encouragement of Co-operation among those engaged in Agricultural Production; eleventh, General Development of all the Varied Resources of Canada; and twelfth, Adequate Consideration of the Needs of the Industrial Population. The great majority of these planks are matters that have no reference to the war. I contend that when this platform was before the electors of Canada, every one of its planks was submitted to their consideration and approval; and while under the' circumstances existing at that time every person's mind and attention was directed almost solely to the great issue of the war and these other planks may have been tem-	-
porarily forgotten in the larger importance of the other, nevertheless they were all there as a part of the policy of the Union Government. And if any mandate was given to that Government it was, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, given by the people of Canada to their representatives for the purpose of being acted upon; each representative elected in support of the Unionist Government was given a mandate to support the carrying out of every plank of that platform. The war has terminated successfully; I do not think many of us expected that it would end as quickly as it did when the election was in progress. But there are still problems arising out of the war, some of which were mentioned in that platform and which are still being dealt with. There are many-other planks which, as I have said, have no reference to the war or to after-war problems and which are not yet fully dealt with. Therefore, I say that the mandate of the Government is not exhausted.
The point is made that the personnel of the Government is different; and the leader of the Opposition named twelve out of the original members of the Government who are no longer in that Government. I have looked over the list and find that of the twelve one was defeated in the general election, two are dead, two have fbeen appointed to office, and seven are still in the House; and so far as ocular evidence goes, only two of those are on the other side of the House, the other five still giving strong support to this Government.
What about the constitutional right of the Government to carry on? I do not think that point need be laboured. The leader of the Opposition and the Opposition members must, I think, concede that as a matter of right this Government is entitled to carry on. But they say that they have no moral right to do so. As to the constitutional right, so far as I am aware, no question could be raised if, in the event of the Government being defeated and the leader of the Opposition being called upon, he should carry on in this House for the term of this Parliament, if he chose to do so and could find sufficient support in the House. That has been done in the British Parliament on several occasions, the last occasion, if I remember rightly, being in the year 1885 when the Government of Mr. Gladstone was d'-feated. Although he had a large majority in the House he was defeated on a chance vote, and Lord Salisbury took office after considerable hesitation and carried on for some months before asking for dissolution.

It was done in our own country in the province of British Columbia. In 1903 when the Prior Government was defeated and Mr. McBride was called upon to form a Government, he completed the work of the House and passed the Estimates before dissolving. Precedents have been quoted, and it is said that this is not the same Government. Well, was the Government in Great Britain the same in 1915 as the one which took office in 1911 or 1910? In that election, if my memory serves me rightly, Campbell-Bannerman was returned, succeeded by Mr. Asquith. At the outbreak of the war a Coalition Government was formed entirely different from that which was returned to power at the general election; but there was no special mandate from the people to that Government to continue. In 1915 Mr. Lloyd George succeeded Mr. Asquith and made further changes, and that Government which carried on there until 1918 was as different as it possibly could be from the Government returned to power in 1919.
I should like to state a supposititous case-one very difficult, indeed, to suppose. But let us assume for the purpose of argument that the election in 1917 had resulted differently and that the Union Government had been defeated and the Liberal party returned to power. Their argument is that the people in that election had only in contemplation the question of the war, and had only in contemplation that whatever Government was returned to power should only carry * on until the termination of the war. In that supposititous case, had the Liberal party been returned, I wonder would they have admitted at the termination of the war that their mandate was exhausted, and that they should dissolve and go to the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


Frederick John Fulton: Can you, Mr. Speaker,
by any stretch of imagination conceive of the Liberal party admitting what they are now arguing against this Government? The argument surely cuts both ways, and if it holds good against the present Government it certainly ought to hold good in the case which I have just mentioned.
To my mind, an unfortunate allusion was made by both the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), the allusion to the conduct of the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1911, which was referred to by both these speakers but in a very different manner. The leader of. the Opposition in dealing
with the point would rather lead one to infer that in the session of 1911 no mention was made of the reciprocity question. He stated in his speech that Sir Wilfrid Laurier recognized the rights of the people as superior to those afforded his Government under the Constitution; he believed that governments should be carried on only with the consent of the governed. He dissolved Parliament and appealed to the people to pass upon an issue other than which was involved in the elections of 1908. My hon. friend made no reference whatever to the fact that the reciprocity resolution was introduced into the House in 1911? The member for Maisonneuve dealt with the matter in a different manner. He stated the facts. He stated that the resolutions were introduced, but that the Opposition strenuously opposed them, and as a result of that opposition the Government went to the country. I believe those are the facts. But the member for Maisonneuve, I submit, was wrong in his argument in this respect. He said that reciprocity was no new issue and that it had been before the country on previous occasions. So it had been. But what was the result when the issue was before the country on those occasions? Did the country accept the principle? The country had rejected on all previous occasions any attempt at reciprocity. Now it was no issue in 1908 at the general election, and yet the leader of the Government in 1911 introduced no new principle, as the member for Maisonneuve says, but brought in the reciprocity resolutions against all previous decisions of the electors of this country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick John Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose I was referring to the reciprocity resolutions introduced in the session of 1911. Perhaps I may be pardoned if, for the sake of picking up the thread of my argument, I am guilty of a little repetition. I stated that this question was referred to, both by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), and I stated further that each dealt with it in an entirely different manner.
If we are to accept the argument of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, a Government has the right to introduce and to en-

his food, and for all the necessities of life. Find work for them. Why not start immediately and build the Georgian Bay canal? This is a national undertaking, one which would be of advantage to the country, while workmen would earn fair wages. All important public bodies are clamouring for the building of this canal. The Boards of Trade of Montreal and of Hull have both passed resolutions requesting the Government to have this work carried out immediately, but they have only met with refusals, the Minister of Finance stating that he was without funds for such an undertaking, the public revenue having been absorbed in paying interest on the war debt.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that our national debt exceeds two billions; nevertheless, millions have been found for the purchase of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk; the operations of the first year have left a deficit of $60,000,000. The expenses of the militia have been increased by six millions yearly, though the war is over and we do not need a militia. The hon. Minister of Marine intends spending millions on a navy which is not necessary in peace time. This reply that there is no money is but an excuse, Mr. Speaker. Money can always be found to help large firms, or to enrich political friends; yet, there is none for an undertaking which would further the development of the country, while the farmer would be afforded greater facilities for the shipment of his products and the labourer would be supplied with work.
I also note, in the speech from the Throne, that the Government intends considering the opportunity of paying old age pensions and protect the labourer from unemployment. I would be tempted to rejoice, Mr. Speaker, because, at every session, since I have the honour-of sitting in this House, I have requested that such legislation be passed in favour of the workmen. My. only fear is that it is but a false hope, that the Government will content themselves with an investigation, without legislating on the matter. As I have said in previous years, when a man has spent all his life in enriching his master,-the man, very often having but insufficient wages to support his own family,-it is not fair that he should be compelled, when too old to work, either to go to the poorhouse, or be left a charge to his children. The Government should, I think, establish a pension fund for these old employees.
I would also mention, Mr. Speaker, the compliments and the loud praise given to

the Province of Quebec by my hon. friend who seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I quite realize that this is a serious moment for the Government, that their only chance of remaining in power is by making friends in the province of Quebec. But, Sir, allow me to say that it requires more than mere words to make us forget all the abuse and the insults that were heaped on us during the war. I remember that, in 1917, the press and the Tories, headed by Mr. Meighen, endeavoured to rouse the English provinces against Quebec; now that Quebec may be of help, compliments are being bestowed upon her. In so far as I am concerned, and quite contrary to my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier), I am as indifferent to their compliments as I am to their insults, and will have no faith in those fine words until our share of patronage has, in all justice, been given us, either in the Cabinet, or in the several commissions, or yet in the public appointments that may be made, and until the French language has been given the place of honour to which it is entitled in Parliament and throughout the country.
Before concluding these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I am in favour of the amendment moved by the honourable leader of the Opposition, and I shall ask all the members of this House, especially those who are sitting on your right, Sir, to act independently; let them heed the voice of their conscience which tells them that the Government's mandate has expired, that they are only usurpers, that they should vote in favour of the amendment of the leader of the Opposition, so that we may have elections immediately.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, it is customary on the occasion of the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne for this House to pass in review the programme that the Government submits in that speech through the lips of His Excellency the Governor General and the record and activities of the Government during the preceding months or years. But in this case, Sir, it would appear that the ancient custom has been almost wholly departed from. Immediately following upon the two excellent speeches delivered by the mover (Mr. Mclsaac) and the seconder (Mr. Mac-Kelvie) of the Address, the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) introduces an amendment which, I think, in the eyes of all thoughtful members of this

House can be construed as nothing less than a straight negative of the resolution.
This amendment, which has been characterized as a bald amendment-and I think it is properly so named-has been very largely the subject of debate. Were we called upon to deal with the amendment in itself we could very well afford to dismiss it with but a few observations. But my hon. friends opposite, more particularly the leader of the Opposition, have, during the course of their arguments, made a great many statements and assertions and offered certain condemnations in regard to the Government, which, I think, call for some attention on the part of members on this side. It is because of this that I propose to deal with the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite rather than specifically and solely with the subject matter contained in the resolution and in the amendment.
We find the Government faced with two oppositions, two groups of hon. gentlemen in this House representing certain policies. At least, these two groups have given to the public two distinct policies, though in one sense we find them apparently united. I have been waiting for a week to hear from the hon. gentleman sitting at the end of the Chamber and to obtain a lead as to their views, but judging from reports I think I am not mis-stating it when I say that they are apparently united in opposition to the Government in regard to this question.
Now, I wish to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to certain facts, and in doing so I desire also to appeal to them, because I am quite certain that the majority of them, while they may appear on the surface to be more or less blindly following their leaders, are most anxious to weigh matters carefully and to give due consideration to arguments that may be advanced. My hon. friends who represent the Liberal party in this House present a certain view. I do not see the leader of the Opposition in his seat; if he were here I would ask him to correct me if I mis-state the position they take. In his absence I will ask my hon. and genial friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) to do so. Their position, I think, may be summed up in this way: they assert that the Government has lost the confidence of this House.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am happy, Sir, to know that I have not mis-stated their position; I will come to that a little later. I will make a further statement now, in which I shall endeavour to interpret the arguments they have advanced and the position they have assumed. They assert in most violent language that the Government has lost the confidence of the country.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am again most happy in having correctly stated their position. Indeed, Sir, I have before me the words of the leader of the Opposition in which he says that we should have an election at once. I do not wish to quote his remarks at any length, but this was his statement in support of his amendment a few days ago. I turn to my hon. friends, and I do not wish to characterize them as the North-East Party:	I will characterize them in the
term that they prefer, the Agrarian party, and I do that for the purpose of distinguishing them from my hon. friends immediately opposite. They have a slightly different position. So far as I have been able to gather from the published statements of their leaders, they assert that they do not want an election forthwith; but they say: "Inasmuch as last year or on a previous occasion we joined in a vote of want of confidence, we think it would be desirable for us to join in this vote of want of confidence, because we have no apprehension that the Government will be defeated or that an election will be brought on, but we shall be in this safe position of having said that we have no confidence in the Government." I hear no objection to that, and I once again assume that I am not misstating the fact or the case. I want to invite my hon. friends to consider this matter. In his most recent public utterances, utterances made under conditions under which we are warranted at least in assuming that he was expressing his innermost thoughts-and that was in the late byelection in Peterborough-the leader of the Opposition had this to say, and I invite most careful consideration to these words:
From now until the day of a general election only one of two things can possibly happen. Either the Meighen Administration will continue to hold power or it will be defeated on a vote of want of confidence-
That is a plain statement. Then he added these significant words:
m which event it would be the duty-
Mark you.
-of His Excellency the Governor General to call upon the leader of the Opposition to form an administration.

In this House the leader of the Opposition has been thundering in the interest of the people. In his statement which I have quoted, he says this: "It is not a general election that I want; it is simply that the Meighen Government"-I am using his own words, and in doing so I am not violating the rules of the House-"shall be defeated, and I, as leader of the Opposition, shall be called upon to form a Government." In other words, he has let the cat out of the bag. The sole incentive, objective,, on the part of the hon. gentleman leading the Opposition is accession to office. My hon. friends will have great difficulty in escaping from that position because, before I get through, I am going to offer them a way out which I am quite certain they will not accept. I turn to my hon. friends of the Agrarian party, composed very largely of hon. gentlemen from the three Prairie Provinces-


Mr. M. CLARK:: From all over the
place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said "very largely;" I will very willingly include hon. gentlemen from other parts of Canada. I say the group very largely composed of hon. gentlemen from the Prairie Provinces, and great credit to them. This is the position in which they will find themselves. In supporting this amendment and admitting that they are sincere in that support, if they succeed in defeating the Government, they can have no redistribution before a general election. I am a member from the province furthest west, and I claim in this House, on behalf of and in the name of my province, this right, that there should be a redistribution before a general election so that my province may have its proper representation in this House. That is a very important point in this matter.
Indeed, were it not for the fact of a redistribution coming on, or that a redistribution should occur before a general election, I would not have any very great objection to the demands of my hon. friends opposite for an election. I would welcome it; but as a representative of a British Columbia constituency which has grown very largely, and from a province which, I believe will have a larger representation in the new House than in this, I claim that as a right, and I say that right is of very great importance. I say to my hon. friends from the three Prairie Provinces-and I invite their attention to this with all seriousness and earnestness, that there are

peculiar to Western Canada problems apart from politics, apart from our party or their party, which will never be solved until the West has a very much larger representation than it has now, and it is our duty, if we are true to the interests of our particular section of the country, that that increase of representation in this House should be brought about at the earliest possible date.
I will give one illustration, and I will not labour the point, because this is not the time to do so. I will bring it to the remembrance of my hon. friends that for ten years I have on frequent occasions brought to the attention of the House, as it has been brought to the attention of the proper legal authorities, namely, the Railway Commission, the inequality in freight rates in this country. This is an important problem to which I have given exhaustive study. When I state that in my province and in some parts of the prairies we are paying a freight rate, in most cases, approximately three times the charge in Eastern Canada, it will be recognized that we have a grievance. That is a grievance that has no political aspect, that can be solved, as my hon. friends know, only by proper and weighty representation in this House, and there are many other problems of equal importance. What I wish to say to them is this-and I am not now talking for the sake of argument of a political character-British Columbia and the three Prairie Provinces are the only provinces in Canada that stand to gain by a Redistribution Bill, and I stand here to claim for British Columbia-and I hope my hon. friends from the Prairie Provinces will claim the same for their provinces- the fulfilment of that right of representation in this House.
I wish to deal with one other phase of that question before I leave it, because it will be advanced no doubt by those who seek excuses for a position opposite to the one I am suggesting. It has already been intimated in the press that hon. gentlemen will argue that any increased representation will accrue to the cities; that it will not accrue to the rural districts. Be that as it may, in the first place, I am not going to argue vainly that the Prime Minister and his Government and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will deal fairly and honestly with the Redistribution Bill, because if hon. gentlemen opposite ' have made up their minds to the contrary, nothing I say will convince them. But assuming for the sake of argument that the cities will gain, have not the

cities a right to gain if they have the necessary population?
Take my own city, for instance. We have heard throughout the length and breadth of this land as one of the basic cries backing up the Red interests in this country, that the labour interests have not got fair representation. Now, if you give increased representation to the cities, does not labour get a larger opportunity? Undoubtedly it does, because labour controls the vote in the cities, absolutely controls it. So I invite my hon. friends to the consideration of this point: If it does turn out that the cities will gain under the Redistribution Bill, is it not right that they should gain, providing they have the necessary population? I say to my hon. friends, that before they commit themselves irrevocably to this vote of want of confidence demanding, as it does, in the words of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, an immediate election, they must give it careful consideration and be prepared to face the western section of this country and explain why they voted against the proper representation of the West in this House.
Let me turn now to another phase of this question. Has there been any general demand in this country for a general Election? Outside of the pilgrimage undertaken by the leader of the Opposition, who at every place he spoke dwelt on this subject of improper representation in this House, and sought to disseminate throughout the country mistrust of Parliament- not of the Government, but of Parliament -there has been no utterance on the subject by any outstanding citizen, or any groups of citizens, so far as I know, with the exception of one group.
You know, Mr. Speaker, as do all hon. gentlemen who have been in this House some years, that one of the readiest ways ox presenting a demand to this House is by means of telegrams, letters, petitions, and so forth. How often, Sir, we have sat in this House and seen hon. gentlemen rise in their place when the Orders of the Day were called, and proceed to read telegrams about this, that and the other thing in condemnation of the Government. Do you think that if such a demand existed, if it had been expressed by any large body of citizens, we would not have heard of it? Have you seen anything of it in the press? Has there been a single board of trade from one end of Canada to the other that has made such a demand? Have we had any such demand from labour organizations? Have we had any such demand from municipal or civic governments in this country, or from Provincial Legislatures? You might ask why I cite them.
I do so for this reason: We have been told here, not once, but scores of times, that we are usurping the people's rights.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends opposite say "hear, hear." I would ask them how can we usurp the people's rights without infringing upon the inherent and constitutional rights of municipal and provincial governments, and the activities of commercial bodies? Can we do so? And has there been a single representation from any of these bodies to this House or to the public? Absolutely none. Again I repeat, the only demand for a general election originates with and comes from my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, whose sole object is the attainment of office in this country.


Mr. DUFF:: What about the War Veterans?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I forgot to mention
them. I intended to say that I did hear of a demand from one quarter, and it was this. Mr. Harry Flynn, a gentleman whom I think nearly everybody in this House knows, and who requires no introductory remarks from me, held a meeting in Vancouver, a portion of which city I represent, and under the influence of his eloquence a resolution was passed demanding that this Government immediately go to the country. Outside of that, Sir, I have seen nothing, and \ know of nothing, in the way of a demand for a general election.


Mr. JACOBS:: What about the Peterborough by-election?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is going to hear something about the Peterborough by-election in a minute. What about the Peterborough by-election? We might as well talk about it now as later. The Peterborough by-election showed this that there was a Liberal candidate in the field, the first and only one in the five byelections since the right hon. the leader of the Government took office. That Liberal Candidate got a minority vote of the electorate of Peterborough by virtue of the fact that the Government support was divided into two, although it polled a larger vote than was accorded the Liberal candidate. There was two other candidates in the field, one representing the Farmers, and one representing Labour. My hon. friend's

candidate will enter this House in a few days, and will no doubt be received with roars of applause by hon. gentlemen opposite, although representing but a very small minority of the people of Peterborough. I have no objection to that, because he is constitutionally elected and entitled to his seat. If my hon. friends opposite can get any comfort out of that, they are entitled to it, but there is mighty little comfort in it.
Why did they not run a candidate in Yale? Why did they not run a candidate in Colchester? What about St. Jolfn? They abandoned their poor candidate down there. What about the splendid run made by my hon. friend's candidate in Elgin? Why, not long ago the leader of the Opposition made a speech in Peterborough in which he pointed to the drubbing the Government's candidate got in Elgin. As a matter of fact, Sir, we lost by about 200 votes. My hon. friend did not say anything about the drubbing his candidate got. He lost by about 2,000 votes. My hon. friend asks me what about Peterborough? I ask him, what about these other four ridings? If he can get any consolation out of having a minority candidate squeezed in, out of five candidates, in Peterborough he is welcome to it.
I was proceeding to ask: have not all the reasons that have been advanced here in support of this amendment existed since the armistice was signed? There have been three sessions prior to this since the armistice was signed-the spring of 1919, the fall of 1919, and the 1920 session, and yet this is the first occasion since the armistice was signed that my hon. friends have raised the question of a direct want of confidence vote. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) did, it is true, introduce resolutions which I shall deal with a little later on in connection with another subject. They were resolutions dealing with a specific and stated reason why there should be a want of confidence-an amendment to the Budget-but there was not a word in them such as is contained in the amendment now under consideration.


William Duff: Yes, there was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a word, and I defy the hon. gentleman to produce it.
As a matter of fact, their attitude to-day vindicates the Government up to this time in their own eyes. By their attitude today they virtually give the Government a

clean bill of health for the last three years. Now, I have another statement which I desire to make, and I am going to quote very briefly from the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King). He says that the will of the people has been ignored. I observe that my hon. friends are not applauding now. They applauded pretty vigorously a while ago, but it seems that they are becoming rather dubious of the wisdom of the stand taken by their leader. That hon. gentleman also said that the rights of the people were usurped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They got it this time. The rights of the people, says the hon. gentleman, have been usurped-by whom? By this parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, by the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Were hon. members
opposite not elected on exactly the same franchise as hon. members on this side?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No? Do I hear hon.
members say "no"? My hon. friend from I.unenburg (Mr. Duff) does not invite me, surely, to analyze the election in Lunenburg?


William Duff: Yes, certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I repeat
what I have already said, that hon. gentlemen opposite were elected to this parliament on the same basis as that on which hon. gentlemen on this side were returned. They were elected under the same franchise. Now, they tell us that the rights of the people have been usurped by parliament, for that is the logical inference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad to get confirmation from my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), an hon. member who, I think, understands constitutional law very well, and who can speak with authority on the subject. It has been stated here that the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen) has lost the confidence of this House; and that even if he has nor lost the confidence of the House he has no right to hold office, because he has usurped the rights of the people.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I am stating
their argument fairly. Now, I say this to everyone of them, that if they are convinced that they are accurate and true in that

statement; if they are behind the leader of the Opposition in his various assertions, of which I shall give samples in a moment, then there is a very easy and simple way of remedying the trouble. What is it? A very short time ago-last session, I think, or the session before-through the initative of my hon. friend from Montreal-I have forgotten the exact riding-a Bill was passed in this House making it imperative that a by-election should be held within six months. Am I not right? I certainly am. My hon. friends last July, when the House prorogued, knew that it was improperly constituted, as they say; well, knowing now that the government has usurped the rights of the people; knowing that the franchise was, to use their own language, a piece of public debauchery; knowing all these things and being convinced, as they say they are, why do not they not resign their seats and appeal to the people?


Mr. CAHILL:: Because the Government would rob the treasury.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends laugh but I challenge them to consider this point. Do they mean to say, believing that, that if hon. gentlemen vacated their seats the Government would dare to carry on? In any case, if they had taken this step before the House was called together we would have had a miniature general election even if the Government had continued to hold office, for we would have had to run a by-election in every seat. But in order to safeguard the treasury, which some hon. gentleman evidently fears might suffer, why could they not divide their forces, leaving one valiant band in this House to watch the Government, and allowing the other noble band of patriots to appeal to the country? Then we should have a pretty good test of public opinion. But my hon. friends know that if a large number of their members-not all, but a large number-thought for' one moment that there was any danger of the Government being defeated and a general election being brought on immediately they would not support the amendment but would rather support the Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Try it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends cannot escape the position in which they have placed themselves. They have reiterated time and time again in this House that this Parliament is improperly constituted. If, however, it is properly constituted and
the Government have the confidence of Parliament the constitutional argument of my hon. friends is gone to the winds; there is no argument. My hon. friends cannot escape the position in which they find themselves. By their own admission, and by the statements of their own leader, the case is proved against them.
But they do not rest there. They take care to go further and insinuate into the minds of the people that in some way or other Parliament is not properly constituted. I purpose for a moment to meet them frankly on one of their charges. My hon. friends have used the word "debauchery" pretty freely in this debate in referring to the War-time Elections Act and the election of hon. members to this House. It is a rather serious charge, and if it is made with any degree of sincerity it is one that challenges the attention of Parliament. Let me say to my hon. friends that so far as I am concerned I am prepared to discuss the War-time Elections Act as it was applied to the elections that I know anything about anywhere in the country. I know how it was applied in British Columbia and in the West. I do not think there is an hon. gentleman sitting in this House, either of the Agrarian party elected under that Act or any of my friends from the western provinces sitting on this side, who was elected in any way except with the clearest expression of public opinion which any parliamentarian has ever received since Confederation.
What were the iniquitious features of the Act? Here they are: We gave the soldiers overseas the vote; that was one. We enlarged the franchise by giving the vote to women who had relatives overseas. Why did we not go further? I am going to state frankly, on my own responsibility entirely, one of the reasons which appeal to me, and it is this: While we were in the throes of war it was not common sense, it was not wise, in deed it would have been exceedingly ill-advised had we given the franchise to persons of alien enemy origin in this country. There is no use closing our eyes to that fact. The hon. leader of the Opposition, in speeches he has made all over this country, says that a large section of the community were disfranchised. Now, whom did we disfranchise? We disfranchised only that section of the community to which I have just referred, and I say that were a similar condition to face us again to-day we could not do otherwise. And so I say to my hon. friends, when they use the word "de-
21S

J
bauchery" in connection with the 1917 elections, I think they are exceeding the bounds of reason and ordinary consideration for the interests of the country.
Now let me proceed to another phase of this question. I want to say a few words in connection with the tariff. We are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that the tariff should not be introduced in this discussion, that we should not obtrude upon this debate the question of the fiscal policy of the country. Sir, I was in the West Peterborough election. That constituency was my old home. I spent my boyhood years there, and I witnessed the recent campaign. I can quote the platform of the candidates -the candidate of my hon. friends opposite and the Agrarian candidate-and a very large portion of their platform was taken up with utterances on the tariff-a very large portion of it.
The leader of the Opposition, in his speeches there, made a very definite statement, and I invite the attention of the House not only to the statement he made in Peterborough, but to the statement he made in Kamloops on his western trip, and to the platform which he no doubt had a considerable part in drawing. Then I invite the House to the consideration of this: After viewing these various statements made by the leader of the Opposition it is easy to understand why he does not want the subject discussed in this House. The one thing my hon. friend wants to escape is the tariff, or a fiscal policy, as an issue in this country. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), who is not now in his seat, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), and other hon. gentlemen from the great industrial provinces of Quebec and Ontario-imagine these hon. gentlemen forced to get in behind a platform such as we have here in The message from Liberalism in the records of the 1919 convention in this city. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) nods his head in approval when I mention it. I give him credit at least for being consistent. He stands by this policy. My hon. friend would move the adoption of this policy, if his colleagues would allow him to move it and if he had the opportunity, to-morrow. Before this session is over my hon. friend will tell the House that he stands by every item in that tariff platform. He certainly will. On the other hand, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, the hon. member for North Cape Breton, the hon. member for

Maisonneuve, and a score of others, will advocate something that is absolutely contrary to the principle. I challenge them to make this question an issue in the next election. They will not do it, they dare not do it.


Frank S. Cahill: The record of the Government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was a pretty faint ''hear, hear," Mr. Speaker; they are not very enthusiastic about this. Let me continue with the quotation:
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A very earnest "hear, hear," from the Agrarian party but a very sporadic expression from the Liberal Opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, having read what I have I invite you to listen to this:
And the Liberal Party hereby pledges itself-
You can just imagine the solemnity of the occasion when this was read and affirmed

by those at the convention with their hands raised to heaven.
And the Liberal Party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
Some hon. GENTLEMEN: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why do not my hon. friends make a decent parliamentary, constitutional attempt to implement their pledges by moving that as an amendment?
I challenge them, Mr. Speaker, as I did a moment ago on another subject, to do it either now or at any other time .during the present session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I now, Mr. Speaker, invite you to listen as you have, Sir, with great attention, to this latter clause.
The Liberal Party hereby pledges itself-
Commits itself, pledges itself by its signs and seals! They are pledged to implement by legislation. Now here is what my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition had to say. After stating the constitutional position in which we now are, not under some conditions that might arise, he says it will be the duty of His Excellency to call upon him (Mr. King) to form a government. Then he said to the electors of West Peterborough, a protectionist riding:
Nothing will be done in the way of altering or amending the tariff in the smallest particular.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McMASTER:: Finish the quotation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Brome by his expression questions the accuracy of the statement.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, no; I say finish the quotation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will finish it. Let me read the first quotation again. There is a little danger of our getting away from the position I was trying to emphasize a minute ago:
And the Liberal Party pledges itself-
No, I am wrong it should be "hereby pledges itself." What to do? To quit and go to the country? No. "Hereby pledges itself" to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution that I have read. When? When returned to power.


Andrew Ross McMaster: When returned to
power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wait a moment, let me, Sir, read again what the leader of the Opposition said.


Samuel William Jacobs: Read it in full.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the Meighen Administration is defeated "it would be the duty of His Excellency"-no option in the matter at all-"the Governor General to call upon the leader of the Opposition to form an administration." In other words he is going to accede to office by the defeat of this Government no matter how he can accomplish that defeat. My hon. friend knew when he was speaking to the electors of Peterborough that that platform would defeat him. He knew he could not carry Peterborough with that. He knows, and other hon. gentlemen that I see before me know, that they dare not go to the country on that platform. How was he to get: around that difficulty? Having shown that he was likely to get into office by defeating this Meighen Administration, which he said had not the confidence of the House - persuading them to that-how was he to still their fears about this tariff proposal to which the Liberals in a grave convention had committed themselves?
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in the same strain said:
Do not worry about the tariff. Remember that in 1896 and 1911 we broke all our past pledges and kept the National Policy In force.
And the hon. the leader of the Opposition said:
You are perfectly safe; nothing will be done in the way of altering or amending the tariff in the smallest particular.


William Duff: He said that nothing would be done before a general election. Finish the quotation; be fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has not seen the point yet. I do not like to so characterize him, Mr. Speaker, but I am forced to by his frequent interruptions-my hon. friend's mind is so constituted that he cannot keep in it two propositions at the same time.


William Duff: That is very smart.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We can easily understand, Mr. Speaker, how at Peterborough the hon. leader of the Opposition said he would take one course, and in his speech at Kamloops-which I am about to read to the House-he said he would take another course.


William Duff: Finish the first quotation; be fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think it will become any hon. member to reiterate at the peril of tiring the House for the benefit of one hon. gentleman who does not understand the point. My hon. friend does not want me to read this platform again, does he?


William Duff: Yes, I do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I am not going to do so. We have got that platform, Mr. Speaker, and every hon. member, except my hon. friend from Lunenburg, knows to what I refer. That platform contains this paragraph:
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.
. Mr. DUFF: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, the hon. the leader of the Opposition told the people in Peterborough in the same speech and in almost the same paragraph that the Meighen Administration would be defeated, and that His Excellency the Governor General would then call upon him to form an administration. Having got his hearers into a state of mind where presumably they accepted that probability, he proceeded:
Nothing will be done In the way of altering or amending the tariff in the smallest particular. .
Now, my point is this-


William Duff: Go on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point is quite clear, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. MEMBER:: Are you afraid of it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point is very clear.


William Duff: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is so clear-


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. Hon. members will please bear in mind that the hon. member for Centre Vancouver has the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point is so clear, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman does not like the explanation nor the revelation of it. But in case it should be considered that I am making a play on words in connection with the various utterances of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, let me read a portion from a verbatim

report of a speech made by him in the city of Kamloops in company with my hon. friend from Lunenburg. If he was not present that night I think he was ill.


William Duff: No, I was on the platform.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the hon. member will remember and be able to verify what I am about to say. In this speech the hon. the leader of the Opposition, speaking of the general policy of the Liberal party, went on to say that they wanted a party that represented all political opinions, and classes, and so forth, and then he described how in this great convention in Ottawa there were extremists, that there were free traders and high and low protectionists-the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), for example

and that there was a great body in between, neither high protectionists nor low, nor free traders, but he said they all got together and were able to form a platform in the interests of all the people. Then he proceeded in this strain:
We say the time has come in Canada when the tariff should! be reduced.
That is a straight statement.


William Duff: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good. Then take
the following:
We will start on it at once.
When is that? Is that after a general election? My hon. friends cannot escape this, because it is too serious a matter to play ducks and drakes with, and again, I invite them to consider these statements. The hon. the leader of the Opposition stated clearly the constitutional practice, that if this resolution or amendment of his carried he would go into office, and he told the people of Kamloops that it was the intention of his party to start on the revision of the tariff at once.


William Duff: At Kamloops he said he
was going to reduce the tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend has at last shown to this House that either he is not sincere or not sensible in the remarks that he has made.


William Duff: I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend asks
me to withdraw my remark where I referred to him as being not sensible. Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, he is sensible of what I am saying, but he refuses to admit

it. I do not know which is worse-to lie ignorant of a thing', or to refuse to admit when he does understand it. The point I am seeking, and it is certainly as clear as type can make it, is that the hon. the leader of the Opposition-whom I am glad to see in his seat at the present moment, he having just arrived-makes a declaration before a protectionist constituency assuring the people that the protective principles of the tariff were perfectly safe, and that the hye-election had no bearing upon the tariff whatever; but in the West, in Kamloops, he makes the statement:
Let me tell you what that policy is. We say the time has come in Canada when the tariff should be reduced. We will start on it at once.
Then I draw the attention of the House to this as well, that in the city of Peterborough the hon. the leader of the Opposition, and also his first lieutenant the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, assured that manufacturing centre that there was no danger of tariff revision, the latter using these words:
Be not worried about the tariff. You can rest assured that there will be nothing done to disturb it.
Let me point out, Sir, that they were addressing the people of a city where they manufacture mining, flour milling, saw mill, electrical and other machinery. Listen to this. In the city of Kamloops the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, knowing there were men in his audience who were interested in mining, saw mill and other industries, held out this bait. I quote his exact words which were taken down verbatim:
As to the reduction of duties on the necessaries of life-food, clothing, shelter, warmth, this can be done.
Then he goes on:
It seems to me that you here in British Columbia need a reduction of the duties on the instruments of production more than any other part of the country.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that in Peterborough they manufacture machinery, and there the people were assured there would be nothing done in the way of tariff reduction. At Kamloops, where they use this machinery and where they are handicapped by the long freight haul that I referred to a moment ago, which is one of our problems, and where a great deal of similar machinery is purchased in the United States>
the hon. the leader of the Opposition told the people:
You have your forests, you have your fisheries, you have your mines. You need machinery to develop them, and if this machinery can be procured at a lower cost, it will be followed by a lower cost of production.
Then he continues:
You need a reduction of duties on the instruments of production.	[DOT]
Now, what I am driving at in my argument is simply this, that my hon. friend who leads the Opposition-and in his absence I challenged his followers, and I challenge him now that he is in his seat- dare not bring forward the Liberal platform of 1919 as an issue in this House or in the country. He went through British Columbia appealing to the people-to the selfish instincts of the people, if I may say so-with regard to certain things that they used. He went to the Prairie Provinces and met my friends opposite of the Agrarian party and told them that there was no difference between his policy and theirs; then he came down to Peterborough, a manufacturing town, and told the people that there was no danger; that the tariff would not be tampered with-that the byelection then impending would not result in any interference with the tariff.


William Duff: The hon. gentleman left out the words "until after an election."


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is still worrying.


William Duff: Not nearly as much as the hon. members from Vancouver Centre.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to direct the attention of the House very briefly to another point. My hon. friends state that we have no right to bring the tariff into this discussion; that it is not of interest at the present time. I submit to you, Sir, that the matter is of vital interest. In the speech from the Throne His Excellency, on the advice of the Government, makes a clear statement of the position of the Government on the tariff. Now, I have here two motions, one moved on June 9, 1919, by the hon. member for Brome and the other on May 18, 1920, by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. I shall not weary the House by reading the resolutions, but I wish to point out that in 1919, two years ago, the member for Brome had been alot-ted the high position of financial critic of the Opposition. But he held that position only for a very short time; in fact, after he introduced this resolution he was relegated to the back benches, I might say, and replaced by another gentleman who .had less

dangerous views on the tariff. In the 1919 resolution a substantial reduction was asked for, "as speedily as may be expedient," and so on; then the member for Brome added this:
Also, the reciprocal offer of trade with the United States should be accepted.
If my hon. friends opposite are in earnest about their tariff position, all they have to do is to make a motion in the House setting forth exactly where they stand. Almost every public utterance of the leader of the Opposition has been a different utterance on the tariff question. If my hon. friends do not desire to stand by the platform of 1919, which has been sent all over this country as their official declaration; if they do not wish to stand by the resolution of the hon. member for Brome or that of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to which I have referred, let them frame some platform or some resolution which they are prepared to stand by and introduce it into this House, and we shall be prepared to meet them.
Hon. members on this side will welcome a campaign in this country on the fiscal policy. The leader of the Opposition is seeking to hold the manufacturing interests of Eastern Canada behind him and at the same time to bewitch my hon. friends from the Prairie Provinces as well into supporting him. Why should that be? There is much more in it, perhaps, than would appear on the surface. One would think that the hon. member for Prince, the leader of the Opposition, would not take that somewhat questionable position unless there was really sound reason for his doing so. I shall now give to you, Sir, and to the House what I consider to be the exact reasons for that position. I do not expect my hon. friends immediately opposite to agree with me. but I invite the attention of every thinking member of this House to the argument that I shall make.
It is this: assuming that an election should be brought about, it is absolutely certain that the party whose destinies are now in the hands of the hon. member for Prince could not come into power. That is certain, for the simple reason that there is , not a single Liberal in the Prairie Provinces; we have the Agrarian party replacing the Liberal party in that part of the country. If this Government, or the party represented by this side of the House, should not have a majority, the only possible solution would be the formation of a coalition by hon. gentlemen immediately op-

posite and the Agrarian party. That is the only possible hope for the accession to power of hon. gentlemen immediately opposite. The leader of the Opposition knows that; therefore, he is seeking to hold the allegiance of my hon. friends from the Prairie Provinces with a view to their supporting him in case such an emergency should arise.
Let me briefly, Mr. Speaker, sum up the points I wish to make. As the leader of the Opposition is in his seat, I invite him to consider the challenge that I threw out earlier in my remarks. If the statements of njy hon. friend are true; if the "will of the people has been ignored"-I am quoting his own words; if the "rights of the people have been usurped" by this Parliament; if "hundreds of thousands of citizens were deprived of the franchise;" if the franchise of 1917 was the "worst betrayal of the rights of the people this country has ever known;" if "persons are taxed without representation;" if we are witnessing "open defiance"-still quoting my hon. friend's own words-"of the most fundamental of all principles of government;" if "these halls of Parliament"-again quoting-"are within a charnel house of disillusionment full of intrigue and deceptions" -if, Sir, all this is true; if this Parliament is properly and correctly described by the hon. gentleman in these terms, then I say he can remedy that very quickly by resigning his seat, in company with those who sit behind him. I say to him, with the utmost conviction .of the accuracy of my statements, that this Government and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would not dare to remain in office if any such contingency arose. The leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that he cannot get the backing of his followers sufficiently to do that; he knows that a very large proportion of his followers would desert him if there was any possibility of the Government being defeated at this time. I cannot, Sir, come to any other conclusion than that my hon. friend lacks sincerity in moving this amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am perfectly in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I repeat it, Mr. Speaker, there is every evidence in the words and actions of my hon. friend and in the resolution itself that he lacks sincerity in proposing it and that his sole object is to

secure office, thinking that, perchance, with a large number of hon. gentlemen on this side away ill, he should be able to secure the reigns of office with the assistance of my hon. friends from the prairies-whose interests, I may say, are diametrically opposed to his on this occasion.


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman resumes his seat, I would like to inquire whether he is authorized to state on behalf of the Government that if the Opposition members will resign, the Government will resign and go to the country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Am I permitted to answer?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will simply repeat what I have said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer my hon. friends. I uttered the challenge to my hon. friends that if they felt the accuracy of the statements of their leader, then it was their duty to resign the seats so obtained; that in so far as this side of the House was concerned, I was convinced, speaking for myself-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -and as far as I am concerned I will act as I speak. I was convinced that hon. gentlemen on this side would not dare to continue to hold office if hon. gentlemen opposite were to act as 1 have suggested.


Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, my first remarks must be words of protest. I hold in my hand the invitation sent to the members of my family asking them to assist at the opening of Parliament as well as an attached memorandum. These documents are exclusively written out in English. To say the least, such a proceeding implies towards the members of this House belonging to the French race, a lack of courtesy which cannot be condoned and which for my part I strongly resent. Indeed, I hold, Mr. Speaker, that invitations of that kind should be couched in the two official languages recognized in this country and that the opposite practice cannot be tolerated. Consequently, I beg of the competent authorities to put an end to that wretched practice, tending to set aside the rights of the French langurge, in such matters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: During the month of
September 1920, I had some business to transact, on behalf of a French-Canadian, with the officials of the Canadian National Railways system. The negotiations involved the signing of a deed. We had requested that the deed should be written in French. But here is the answer that we received:
jLfivis, 2i8th September, 19'20.
Mr. Arthur Trahan, M.P.,
Nicolet.
Dear Sir,
In answer to yours of the 18th instant, I hereby send you a form of application re the laying through of telephone wires over our property at Lemieux.
I am sorry that I am unable to send you a form in French, but we have none printed in this language at this time.
And the form in question, Mr. Speaker, contains two printed pages bearing especially on the construction of sidings. We are always met by the same old excuse which indicates, as far as the Government . and its officials are concerned, that they are intent on making difficulties when it is a question of respecting the rights of the French language in this country. I wish to say that we have refused to sign that deed written in English and we do not intend doing so as long as they will not supply us with a French form. These few cases, chosen among thousands of others, show clearly to what extent the rights of the French language are disregarded in governmental spheres. I most strongly protest against that scandalous policy, and I wish to proclaim before all, that Canada is a bilingual country and both official languages, in practice, and the constitution as well, must be respected. When I demand from the Government that they do not illegally restrict the use of the French language, not only I exercise a right which is inscribed in the constitution but I fulfil a sacred duty.
Indeed, there is something more, something better than the commercial and industrial wealth of a race: it is the thought and the language which expresses it. It is through the diffusion of its language that a nation shows its external vitality, it is through the radiation of its ideals that it preserves and expands its influence. Mr. Speaker, we all wish to see Canada a united country. Let us see that French and English have an equal share in this magni-ficient Parliament, let us treat both languages with the same respect and deference.
I

It is generally admitted to-day that a knowledge of French is necessary not only in this country but also with reference to foreign intercourse; even the hon. member for Durham (Hon Mr. Rowell) who is not friendly to our language, lately proclaimed the necessity of a bilingual education.
People praise the beauty of our mother tongue, and rightly so. May I quote on the subject a few beautiful thoughts uttered by Mr. Etienne Lamy at the sitting of the French Academy held on the 20th of December, 1917:
"When Cardinal de Richelieu founded our Academy, he had these words engraved upon the seal: To immortality. It was to the French language that Richelieu wished that future. It inherited that power of universality which the Greek and afterwards the Latin languages had obtained. But nowadays this supremacy of yore needs being upheld. Outside, it still commands the admiration of the high cultured, though these at times, are repelled by the works of some of our writers. We must admit that those delinquencies are diseases of but a few and of short duration ; that the clearness, order, grace and harmony of the French language are the elements of .its primitive, unalterable 'and unequalled character; that these attainments find their usefulness beyond its native land ; that it is not only an idiom for the use of a particular people, but an instrument of preciseness at the service of the human mind and the purest crystal through which light filters without deviating."
I wish that every one of my colleagues would meditate over these great truths and they will understand why I protest against those who ignore the rights of the French language and that I intend to uphold, to safeguard and to spread it through Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: (Translation) The Government is not merely satisfied with putting obstacles in our way concerning the use of the Franch language; but it really seems firmly resolved to encroach as often as possible upon the legitimate right of the Catholic people to adhere to the practice of their religion. Probably for the first time since Confederation the Catholic public employees have been compelled to work on holy days, observed by them like' Sundays, and this occurred not only in Ottawa, but also in the city of Quebec.
Yet, last session when we opposed the Senate's amendment to do away with several legal holidays, which coincided with Catholic holy days, the then Prime Minister the hon. member from King's, Nova Scotia (Sir Robert Borden), stated that the Catholic employees had no reason whatever to be alarmed, since leave of absence would be granted to them on those days. Notwith-
[Mr Trahan.]
standing that specific pledge, an official notice from the Postmaster General's Department, presided' over by the amazing Mr. Blondin, ordered that the post office employees of the city of Quebec should work on All Saints' Day as on all other days; and if I am correctly informed, Catholic public servants in Ottawa were placed under the same obligation. The same thing occurred here on Conception Day and on Epiphany Day.
Why has not the present Prime Minister kept the pledge given by his predecessor and why has he permitted such spiteful measures to be enacted against the Catholics of this country? I hold him responsible for this outrage against our Catholic convictions and for this attack against our dignity and our religious liberty. We hope that such a thing will not occur again and we hope the Government will take such steps that Catholic holy days will be recognized both by this Government and this Parliament.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: When the Government, as I have just mentioned fails to keep the promises made before this House, it is no longer worthy of the confidence of the people. Therefore, the leader of the Opposition is justified in moving his amendment and we, the representatives of the province of Quebec, have ample grounds to question tne good faith of the Prime Minister who professes friendship for us. His deeds are fewer than his words and these vary according to his audience whether he addresses a French or an English audience.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to the Province of Quebec during the course of last summer; he spoke both at Sherbrooke and at Granby; there he told us that he always had a tender spot for the Province of Quebec, that never had he wished to do it the least injustice, nor had a thought of insinuation against the character of its people ever entered his head. It is well; we take note of it. However, later on, a partial election took place in British Columbia, which brought to this House the hon. member (Mr. MacKelvie) who seconded the address and who is deserving of our congratulations on the manner with which he has performed his delicate task. The Prime Minister took part in this contest of Yale-Cariboo, went around the country and more particularly spoke in such places as Penticton and Summerland. What; views did he express at those meetings? I have

before me the account given to a number of newspapers by the associated press. The Vancouver Sun of November the 4th, 1920, tells us that the Prime Minister discussed before the electors of Penticton and Sum-merland the question of conscription and the Military Service Act, and took advantage of this occasion to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of having left this country at a critical moment to obtain a large prebend in a foreign country and in the employ of the world's most powerful organization. The Prime Minister knew that he was far from the truth when he brought forward this accusation, knowing fully well that at the last session, the Leader of the Opposition had explained his position clearly and explicitly, which allowed of no contradiction. Following up this attack he turned against the Leader of the Opposition's supporters whom you all know; three quarters hail from the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that in this modern world, military imperialism is but the mail fist of commerce and industry *- the open field which remains to imperialism is its economical conquest of the world. These are the underlying reasons why industrial expansion is pressed to its utmost. The Government, faithful servant to the powerful financial interests, has been induced into this prodigious error: they wish to establish an "industrial Holy Empire" in Canada. While they give supremacy to industrial and military matters, they neglect the agricultural interests. Yet rural population is dwindling, the cities are overcrowded, the cost of living is high and the world is starving.
Is excessive industrialism a remedy for these evils? I will answer-No. I certainly do not wish to replace the factory by the farm nor the labourer by the farmer, but I maintain that a just equilibrium must be upheld between the agricultural and industrial interests. On the other hand I assert together with the best known economists that nothing durable, economically, socially and morally, can be built that has not agriculture as its base.
Furthermore, it is my humble opinion, that the systematic industrialization of Canada would entail the complete upheaval of this country's organization, a radical change in all our customs as well as in our ways of thinking; the future of Canada would thus be imperilled. It is pertinent to the general interest, to remain faithful to our traditions and uphold our natural inclination for agriculture. An immense territory capable of sustaining a population of tens
of millions is ours; yet we are obliged to import agricultural products. Is this not a national calamity? In a great measure, is the reason not to be found in the Government's bad policy? This Government which today presides over the destinies of our country instead of creating amongst the people a love for agriculture, has tried to inculcate in these populations the germ of militarism. That is why instead of having experimental farms in large numbers, they established here and there over the whole country, one for each county, if I am not mistaken, military halls and armouries. I maintain that it is more important to change the trend of thought of our people than to increase our armaments. We have to resist plutocratic barbarity represented by the powerful financial concerns who wish to place before all their commercial and industrial interests, that is to say economical imperialism:	we have to
struggle against social barbarity represented by these bolshevick tendencies who aim at destroying the foundation of property owhership in our country; lastly we have to fight against this barbarity under the disguise of science and learning that wish by all means possible to do away with religious teachings in our schools. What are the means at our disposal to enable us to destroy these three plagues, if it is not to turn to our most steadfast population, that one which is most attached to its native soil, the most patriotic, that is the agricultural population, is it not also to encourage farming and return to mother earth.
Such is the right principle; oppose agricultural and economic nationalism to economic imperialism, and that is the reason why the Liberal party, in framing its programme, included the interests of the farming class, and advocated the proper means to improve their condition.
Sir, "the crisis of all crises is that of moral sense", said a French writer. The Government have done nothing to check it. On the contrary, they countenance it. That was lately demonstrated to us in a pitiful manner. We had a further proof of it when in the soldiers' pensions' Act they caused to be inserted a section by which for the first time in the history of Canada our legislators granted a premium to concubinage and adultery. When it was moved that a pension be given to the "unmarried wives and mothers" according to the expression coined by Mr. Nickle, the then representative for Kingston, we of the Liberal party protested against such a disgrace; not only



we protested, but we voted against such a motion.
My right hon. friend said that we were among those who would have others fight for them and that such is our conception of liberty. For the enlightenment of my English-speaking friends, I shall quote from the Gazette:
"Again at Summerland he referred to the leader and opponents of the Government as those "whose idea of liberty was to let other people fight for them."
I need not repeat it, Sir, the large majority, 75 per cent of the followers of the leader of the Opposition came from the province of Quebec, and it is the Prime Minister himself who goes into an English speaking province and states that the followers of the leader of the Opposition are people who would have others fight for them, that is, people who are not brave enough to defend their liberty. That is tantamount to repeating in a different form the charges uttered against the province of Quebec, to wit, that the inhabitants of that province were cowards and defaulters. Our Prime Minister is still what he was in 1917, that is a downright imperialist always fighting vigourously those who do not sanction his policy of sacrificing our last man and our last dollar for the benefit of the Empire to the detriment of Canada. ,
Having discussed for some time with the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. C. C. Ballan-tyne) the setting forward of the hands of the clock in Quebec, the hon. member from St. Hyancinthe came to an understanding, so he says, with the Postmaster touching the questions of imperialism and protection. Well, so much the worse for the hon. member if he wishes to disown his past "to curse the spirit of his race" and to set up treason as a state of policy.
As for us, we shall forever assert as in the past that above financial and monetary matters, there is our honesty of conscience to be consulted and our national pride to be safeguarded. We shall show a persistent tenacity and united stubborness in demanding an apology from those who have abused and despised us in 1917 and who now deluge us with hypocritical compliments and adulations with the sole end of dividing us upon an economic question. We shall safely keep stored in our minds, the bottom of our hearts, the rememberance of the momentous days of 1917-1918 when, under the leadership of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we felt that we were banded together by our common trials and

our anxiety for the public safety. We shall not graciously lower our prestige by joining the ranks of the moneyed interests but true to our motto, we shall still* form an invincible alliance of true hearts, of upright thoughts and strong will power so as to maintain in their entirety our religious ideal and the purest of our national traditions.
We cannot trust those who, by the unfair war time elections Act have usurped power in 1917 and secured their ends by stirring hatred, awakening distrust and using false pretences. They have soand-olously deceived the farmers of this country when after the election they set aside the exemptions .they had solemnly promised to their sons by an Order in Council passed before the election. They deceived our clergy concerning the exemptions to clergymen and to-day they give us but the shadow of a responsible government. How? First of all, the government declines to hand over to the representatives of the people documents and information concerning the other nations.
When, in several instances, we asked for copies of the correspondence concerning the establishment of an embassy in Washington, he refused to bring down these papers, thus trampling upon the puroga-iives of Parliament-Moreover, at the time of the debate on the Peace Treaty, during the second session of 1919, he ignomin-ously treated the members of this House and the people of this country. When I asked if our delegates to the conference had or had not opposed clause 10 of the covenant, it was not thought proper to answer and frankly admit the truth, the whole truth of the matter. Is this not, Mr. Speaker, a contempt of the rights of the people, this systematically hiding the truth from its representatives? We were treated in this unceremonious way because at that time, the treaty had to be ratified without reserve and above all without delay-England, it appears, wanted it so- whatever be the consequences for Canada, and the Government, slaves to Downing street, disregarded their partisans, parliamentary institutions and the popular rights, by rushing the hasty and ill considered ratification of a treaty in connection with which they now ask for the repeal of one most important clause.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Government involves the country's credit and sets up new administrative machinery without the consent of Parliament. I do not need to refer again to the instance

mentioned by the hon. member for Benuce (Mr. Belaud) in the matter of the purchasing commission. The project of such a commission had been kbenly opposed on the floor of this House by the members of both sides of the House, and the Borden government had thought best not to insist upon the adoption of such a project. But the hon.
. Prime Minister had no sooner taken hold of the reins of power than, without consulting Parliament, notwithstanding the clearly expressed will of the representatives of the people on both sides of the House, he created by a simple Order in Council, this purchasing commission which no one had consented to.
MEMBERS: Shame, shame!


Arthur Trahan: And
there is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House:	The
Government involves the credit of the country without consulting Parliament.
_ One day the hon. Minister of Marine got it into his head that a navy was necessary for Canada, and thereupon he entered into negotiations with the Imperial authorities to obtain warships. We have asked for the correspondence on the subject. The hon. Minister of Marine never brought it down; and it is only when he needed money for the upkeep and' equipment of these warships that he put the matter before Parliament. Is this the act of a responsible government? I respectfully claim that it is not. And in regard to this question of a navy, I mean to repeat what I said last year, that the time is exceedingly ill chosen in which to launch such a project, owing to the lamentable situation of our finances, the country being on the verge of bankruptcy. There are numberless reasons for which we should oppose this project, and I ask, why create a navy at the present hour ? Is not the League of Nations a safeguard against the recurrence of wars? Is not the limitation of armaments throughout the world the main object of the league? Large amounts are expended by us to send delegates to the meetings of the League of Nations, and with what result? What country is expected to wage war on us? I shall here take the liberty of quoting from an article of the Farmers Sun dated December 31, 1920:
"What, then are we to prepare for? To take part in another European war for which the seeds have already been sown. If the nations of Europe cannot after the awful experiences flat have occured since 1914, agree to live in peace with each other, then let European nations themselves pay the penalty. In fighting
1B|
one war to end war Canada has done her share and more than her share in that sort of experiment to ensure world peace."
These sentiments I agree with, and I claim that the time is ill chosen for the establishment of a navy in this country, especially when in all the countries of the world is mooted the question of disarmament.
The newspapers tell us that an Imperial Conference is to take place in June next, and that the Prime Ministers of the different Dominions are to be requested to take part in that conference-evidently the questions to be taken up at that conference will be of capital importance, not only for the Empire, but also for Canada.
These questions may be of two kinds: Those bearing upon our constitutional relations with the Empire, with England, and others relating to the scheme for Imperial defence announced by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in an interview in which he declared that Great Britain cannot afford to meet alone the cost of Imperial defence, and that the different dominions and colonies must contribute their share of the expense. If it is a matter of determining the constitutional relations of Canada with England, I mean to reiterate the policy adopted by the Liberal party at the national conference of August, 1919, when they opposed all centralized Imperial control, and claimed that no change in our constitutional relations with Great Britain should come into force before having been submitted to the approbation of the Canadian Parliament and ratified by the people by means of a referendum.
I share entirely, on this point, the opinion expressed by a newspaper of Toronto, the World, which is edited, if I am not mistaken, by one of the hon. members of this House (Mr. W. F. McLean) :
Canada must remain master of its own destinies, free to govern itself and to do her own wishes. The Canadian people will not tolerate to be led nor domineered by Downing Street.
We intend to preserve the supremacy we have acquired and we shall not permit any council or conference, or the imperial parliament, or any outside tribunal, to dictate to Canada. Our legislators must be of our own choice. They must not transfer their power to arty one not designated by the people. They are not the masters but the servants of the State. This authority conferred upon them cannot be transferred to other delegates such as to any imperial government. Let the Knights of the Round Table understand once for all that the Prime Minister Meighen or any other prime minister cannot alter by an iota the absolute right the people of Canada possess to govern this country. This country belongs to Canadians and they intend-to govern it as they please.

"When we shall need an advice from the Lords or their equals living outside of Canada, we shall ask for it. If in the past the Government of the Dominion has pledged Its word in any way, let it render an account to Parliament and the people.
As to the question of Imperial defence, I ask: Why this military imperialism at a time when general disarmament is the main talk everywhere?
To-day much is said about divorce in our country. The newspapers are discussing the question, and there is talk of legalizing in Canada this social cancer which is eating the heart of other countries. According to the unanimous opinion of the most distinguished jurists, the indissolubility of marriage is the rule, at least as regards the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Those who obtain a divorce by means of a Private Bill have their marriage dissolved, but that does not change the general rule, which is the indissolubility of marriage. This principle conforms with the natural law, while the divorce, which dissolves marriage during the lifetime of the united parties is contrary to natural order.
I am not discussing this question from a religious point of view, I only look at it from a social and a national standpoint; and as such I may quote a few thoughts from a writer, which I submit to the serious consideration of the hon. members of this House:
"The indissolubility of marriage is not a religious superstition, an invention of adherents to a by-gone cult, an unreasonable enactment of wild troglodytes. Nature is at the bottom of this iron law."
And further on the author shows that divorce is not only against nature but antinational and immoral:
"Divorce, encouraged, vulgarized by a regime which confounds cowardly sentimentality with courageous and sane humaneness, divorce at will is the greatest of our crimes and the most baneful of our errors.
If we do not apply the hot iron to this ulcer, our blood will continue to ooze from it in corruption.
But, it will be said, what of the rights of man and the rights of woman... the right to live...
What! what rights?... Tou have children, you belong to them! you made a mistake, so much the worse! Tou are already of the past. The child is the future, he is the race. Remain bound together by the child."
And farther on-*
"It takes twenty years to make a human being capable of facing life. It is not the work of a day dr of a month, it is a considerable labour which is the whole raison d'etre of parents and shows the importance which Nature attaches to manhood and what responsibilities it entails. Tou aim at shunning these responsibilities, eschewing the family and its duties by the selfishness of celibacy or the shame of

divorce. Flee! but in your flight you drag all - with you to the abyss, and the country perishes through your desertion of the hearth."


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who is the author?


Arthur Trahan: Henri de Noussanne. A little farther on he says:
"Marriage is worth what we are "worth. From money calculations, vanities, lies, IIewdress, . can happiness be expected? The intoxication of pride once over, The veil once fallen from folly, one finds oneself in a hell. One then believes that the way out of it is divorce, and in this plight, pledges and children are forgotten. The coward and perjurer, imagines that it matters not; there will be no consequences, no morrow. Marriage is thought to be a transitory, an occasional adventure, dependent only upon one's calculations, one's mood.
".A.S well believe that birth and death are also dependent upon our whim, and renewable at our caprice. As well imagine that we can fool Nature, as we can fool men, and that God is not the name of the Spirit in Nature, and that justice is not the name of reason in the spirit."
And in another place the author again
says:
"We can only expect our salvation from social peace made of family peace, which can only come from the purification and the consolidation of marriage restored by its essential function, which is the creation and education of the child."
Well, Mr. Speaker, we complain at present of unrest, in certain parts of Canada. This unrest can be attributed to the dire ravages caused by divorce and the reduction of the birth-rate. We hope that the Government will not propose so iniquitous a measure as one for the establishment of a divorce court. We hope that directly or indirectly they will hot favour such a measure, and I for one, should it be brought, will hold it my duty to most vigorously oppose it.
Nowadays compliments are freely lavished upon the province of Quebec. It is called the pivot of Confederation. We hear that her people are sane, are stable and do not allow themselves to he blinded by socialistic or other passions; and it is true. Why is this the case in our province? It is because we have remained attached to the native soil, to peaceful country life, we have sought before all to develop our agricultural lands, to throw them open to colonization. Why have the people of Quebec acquired such a good reputation in the other provinces? Because in the humble school in which they are formed they are taught their duties towards God and towards their neighbours. On this point let me quote from a speech delivered by the new Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Taschereau), on November 4th, 1920, on the occasion of the

meeting of the deputy-ministers of education of the different provinces.
However behind the times, did he say, our primary schools may have seemed to you some twenty-five yeans ago, I can say this much to their credit. They taught the children their religious duties, and they taught them to remain on the land with their parents; they warded off that modern evil which draws the farmers' sons from their natural sphere; they , did not seek to lead them towards a commercial or industrial life which has no right to claim them, nor to take them away from the pursuit of agriculture.
I have said enough and perhaps too much, Mr. Speaker, to show that the Government is undeserving of the confidence of this House and of the country, as the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition shows. The Government ignores, notwithstanding our constitution, the rights of the French language; they do violence to our Catholic conscience in forcing the civil employees to work on religious holidays; they continue their tactic of insulting the province of Quebec while seeming to court it; they give us a caricature of responsible government by refusing to furnish the people/s representatives with the public documents to which they are entitled; they pledge the credit of the country without consulting Parliament; they work for the triumph of economic and military imperialism to the detriment of agricultural and economic nationalism; they, in a word, tend, by means of divers laws which they have passed and others of which they underhandedly favour the adoption, they tend, I say, towards the crisis of all crises, that of moral sense. We oppose such a policy. We of the province of Quebec wish to live in the tranquility of work and order, by which may be insured the harmonious development of our country under the moral aegis of a religion which connects Heaven overhead with Mother Earth.
On the motion of Mr. C. R. Harrison (Nipissing) the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 23, 1921.